- 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 Merge and Redirect to Schadenfreude. Having two articles on effectively the same subject is content forking; the normal English word is clearly schadenfreude and there does not appear to be any difference between the meanings. Therefore a mention of this word in the article Schadenfreude is reasonable and sufficient. Some information is already there; editors may wish to add more, although respecting the fact that this should always be a minor section (in the manner of WP:WEIGHT). Black Kite 11:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Epicaricacy[edit]
- Epicaricacy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Nominated for Delete per WP:NAD, consensus on talk page is for re-direct to "Schadenfreude" betsythedevine (talk) 17:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- CommentHow exactly do you define consensus? Three users in a one-day period? This nomination flies in the face of reason or trying to build "consensus." --evrik (talk) 19:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- CommentThe point of this nomination is to try to reach out to a wider group for consensus. I agree that three users commenting on a very obscure article is a very small sample of consensus, but I also think it is significant discussion that was conducted in good faith and with people explaining their opinions and citing Wikipedia policy to back them up. For example, as Grafen said, " From WP:NAD in relation to Wikipedia: "Articles whose titles are different words for the same thing, or different spellings for the same word, are duplicate articles that should be merged. For examples: petrol and gasoline; colour and color." And by contrast in relation to Wiktionary: "Different words warrant different articles (e.g. petrol and gasoline)." betsythedevine (talk) 20:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Really, I don't think this is the correct forum for this. If you had wanted to bring in other comments, there are other forums for that. This nomination kinda smells to me. --evrik (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- There are 4 editors (including me) that supported the redirect. For an unnoticed topic such as this, this is pretty clear consensus. The "usage" section does not show any usage; this is obvious to anyone. The only two sources you could find for the word "epicaricacy" seem to be collections of rare and obscure words, some of which it is doubtful they are even words. Standard dictionaries such as the OED make no mention of it. The reason you seem to have created this article is because you originally thought schadenfreude was not an English word and you thought epicaricacy was the English equivalent. The evidence is clear that you are wrong, but since you refuse to admit it, we are here. --C S (talk) 03:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Speaking of consensus, why did you reverse my redirect when you had not managed to drum up any support? Even if you are correct in asserting consensus was minimal for the redirect, clearly you had no support at all. --C S (talk) 03:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Three editors in one day was a little premature, wasn't it? --evrik (talk) 14:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Merge to Schadenfreude, as that's the more common term and hence the more likely search term. Why is this at AfD if you want to redirect it? AnturiaethwrTalk 17:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- I would also be open to deletion, as this discussion makes me question its probability as a search term, as does its absence from the Oxford English Dictionary. AnturiaethwrTalk 03:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Isn't this the right way to propose deleting the article and making a search for it re-direct to Schadenfreude? Somebody did re-direct the article already on May 10, after significant discussion on the talk page, but the article creator just reverted the re-direct. betsythedevine (talk) 19:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Again, three users commented in a one-day period, that's significant discussion on the talk page? No, if it were to be redirected (and I am not saying it should be) it should be reverted to this entry where it was a soft redirect to wiktionary. --evrik (talk) 19:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- If the article is to be made into a redirect, then it should be done in the same way in which it was done earlier. Deletion would only hinder that process. "Articles for deletion" is not "Articles for redirection." AnturiaethwrTalk 03:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep the word has value unto itself. The article has some encyclopedic content. It is more than an word entry. It already exists on wiktionary. --evrik (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep or merge Either keep this as a separate article or merge. Deletion is simply the wrong option here. Personally, I vote to keep it as a separate article per options above. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Redirect to Schadenfreude: I note that of the three citations for the word "in English" in the article, one refers only to the Greek root word from which it is derived, and the other two citations are in passages where it is clear from the context that they are referring to Greek people, concepts or ideas. I have seen this word used nowhere in American English in the way Schadenfreude has been -- that is, independent of an original-language context -- and I further note that a quick search of AHD4 (American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition) on Bartleby.com produces no entry at all for this word. It might be mentioned in the context of the more widely used word, but I see nothing that argues for a standalone article.Marketstel (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I think the key question is whether or not Schadenfreude and Epicaricacy are distinct subjects. Other than etymology, are there different things to write about each? I don't have an opinion on this, however, I would err on the side of giving this article a chance to grow and prove itself. ike9898 (talk) 21:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- (response to Ike9898's comment) I don't think anyone has claimed that "epicaricacy" means something different from "Schadenfreude." Evrik's argument for changing multiple links that used to go to Schadenfreude so that now they go instead to the new article he created for epicaricacy ([24] [25] [26] and more) seems to be that epicaricacy is better than Schadenfreude because it is an English word, not a German loan-word. [27]. See also the discussion of this on Evrik's talk page [28]. betsythedevine (talk) 22:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- How is that relevant? What does this have to do with your nomination? Are you saying you nominated it because I started replacing the usage of the word schadenfreude? What does the usage of the word have to do with whether or not the article should exist? Again, your nomination of the article for deletion, rather than working it out on the talk page, is suspect. If what you wanted to do was start a discussion, then you should withdraw this nomination for deletion and have a discussion. --evrik (talk) 22:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- The remarks you object to were relevant to the comment I was replying to, not to the original AfD. May I also remind you of WP:AGF and WP:NPA. I have no wish to withdraw this AfD because I believe the article should be deleted and replaced by a redirect to Schadenfreude, which talks about the same complex of emotions. It should not be replaced by a re-direct to this word in Wiktionary, because people who search Wikipedia are looking for information about things, not for etymological discussion of obscure words. betsythedevine (talk) 23:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- May I also remind you of WP:AGF and WP:NPA. --evrik (talk) 14:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Redirect to Schadenfreude. My arguments, based on WP:NAD, are on the article talk page and quoted by betsythedevine above. The question is not whether the article does now or might in the future contain some encyclopaedic content. It is whether "epicaricacy" has any significantly different meaning from "Schadenfreude", and I have as yet seen no claim or evidence that it does. Grafen (talk) 22:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Here's one difference: schadenfreude was not a term or concept used by Aristotle, epicaricacy was. --evrik (talk) 22:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, these two words are synonyms. Thus, if "epicaricacy" was used by Aristotle, "Schadenfreude" was too; it becomes a case of competing translations. Is there a distinction between the two concepts? If so, what is it? AnturiaethwrTalk 00:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Competing translations? That's somewhat nonsensical. This isn't about a dictionary definition. This is about an encyclopedic entry. Yes, the words are synonyms. Yet... they have different roots and different histories. Epicaricacy does some directly from. Aristotle was a Greek, and his concept, and the Greek root word predated the German concept by more than a millennium. There's enough here for an encyclopedic entry. What it needs is time to grow. --evrik (talk) 02:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- How the words themselves are distinct from one another is immaterial unless the respective articles are about the words, rather than the concept; this would violate WP:DICDEF unless the words qua words (i.e. divorced from their referents) were notable, and I don't see any claim that this is the case. Therefore, I reiterate: what is the distinction between the psychological state denoted by "epicaricacy" and that denoted by "Schadenfreude"? (Since you say that the two words are synonyms, as I had surmised, I take it that there is none; do I understand you correctly?) AnturiaethwrTalk 03:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete and discuss the Greek term in Schadenfreude. The OED (2nd ed.) does not recognize this, or anything like it, as an English word, and this spelling is not what would be used even if it were an English word ("epichaerecacy" would be closer to what the word would look like if it had ever been adopted into English, and a straight transliteration would be "epichairekakia"). Aristotle's use of ἐπιχαιρεκακία and Burton's and Lewis's references to that use constitute information that has a valid place in WP, but this mistitled article isn't the place, nor is the title a plausible redirect. Deor (talk) 02:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, although I don't object to redirect since that is cheap. I highly doubt epicaricacy is a real English Word, appearing to be sourced only to dubious references. Standard dictionaries such as OED make no mention of it. --C S (talk) 03:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Doesn't actually seem to be an English word. Quale (talk) 14:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. As Evrik says, the etymology is unique and seems to have predated the German concept by more than a millennium. There's plenty of content for a good encyclopedic entry. Let's give it time to grow. Johntex\talk 15:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I would urge those who voiced their opinion early in this debate to re-examine the article in its current state. I believe the article is now much more about the concept rather than the word itself. The article on Schadenfreude is still largely about the word itself, by contrast. If the two articles are to be merged, text about the concept should be primary, and etymology and usage of either term should be secondary. ike9898 (talk) 16:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- True, the article is now much better than it was, and in fact covers the subject in better detail than Schadenfreude does (though it's still marginal); thus, a merge would improve Schadenfreude. AnturiaethwrTalk 16:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that Evrik has written up some excellent historical material about the Greek word for schadenfreude as evidence of historical interest in the emotion described. Considering that people are unlikely to search for the rare word "epicaricacy" but likely to search for the common term "schadenfreude", I would like to see this material added to the schadenfreude article where it can benefit Wikipedia users. Without removing any of it from epicaricacy, I did add the parts I thought were valuable to schadenfreude as well as more information about its usage and scientific research concerning it. betsythedevine (talk) 17:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- While I appreciate the compliment, I removed those additions as they are more appropriate for the "E" article and not the "S" article. If for some reason this article doesn't pass the AfD, well then, by all means use it. --evrik (talk) 17:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Please stop what you're doing in the schadenfreude article. You are blatantly copying the work I've done in an effort to strengthen the "S" article. Reallly, at least have the decency to do your own research. --evrik (talk) 18:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete or redirect or merge to schadenfreude. There is way too much fuss about this word, epicaricacy, that has 7 thousands occurrences on a Google search, while its current English synonym schadenfreude has 1,5 million occurrences. The problem is that user Evrik is acting unilaterally, without discussing and settling the question first, for imposing the use of the word epicaricacy AGAINST schadenfreude throughout the encyclopedia, while other editors are trying to make sense with the article Schadenfreude and its incoming links. Epicaricay should definitely be dealt with under the article Schadenfreude, or then we are going to have countless duplicates articles since almost every thing or event may have diverse words from various origins that are used for referring to them with various nuances. --Robert Daoust (talk) 16:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment: One of the worst things about wikipedia is the way people fight over some REAALLY stupid things. This is a case in point. Most of the comments about having it deleted keep calling the article a dictionary definition, which it is not. In fact, this appears to me to be a well-referenced article, and does not look like a dictionary entry. So, all the comments about the word or the article not being in the OED are really immaterial.
- Perhaps the article should be named differently, but that is not what an AfD is for. Looking at the article as it stands now it has context and history. There is no reason why an article about an emotion, described by a word with Greek roots, should be shoe-horned into an article about a German word.
Finally about process. What the hell is wrong with Betsythedevine? Many times when articles are nominated for AfD, the people who have worked on the article start working to improve the quality of the article and its relevance. Betsy is not only attacking people for doing so, but is herself going around and ,making snide comments as she is doing so. She is not a novice user, so her comments about placing it in AfD to get consensus are hogwash. Sur de Filadelfia (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)- WP:NPA? I never claimed that my only goal in creating an AfD was "consensus." My edit summaries are meant to be informative, not snide. I did not "attack" Evrik for improving the article, I praised his efforts. I did not attack him for improving its "relevance" but I voiced concern that his adding a pile of new links to the article could muddy the issue of its real importance. Your angry and inaccurate accusations are much more in violation of the spirit of Wikipedia than my attempts to make it better by preventing a fork and the siphoning of users away from a real article about a real word schadenfreude (granted that article could use improvement) by shipping them off to admire a brand-new article about an inkhorn term whose defenders can't cite even one non-dictionary source of its use in English to describe the emotion everyone calls "schadenfreude." If you want to make a formal complaint about my behavior, I'm sure any admin can help you to figure out how. This section is not the appropriate place for personal attacks on your fellow editors. betsythedevine (talk) 20:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Since your first edit was apparently only a few weeks ago, perhaps you're not in the best position to lecture people on how things are done around here. Unless, of course, you're not as novice as you seem. Deor (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- The argument for deletion is not that the article is a WP:DICDEF. Rather, it is that this is an unnecessary content fork of Schadenfreude. No one has yet asserted that epicaricacy is not, in fact, Schadenfreude. Therefore, a merge is in order. The resulting article should be called "Schadenfreude," because that is a word in common parlance, while it is a subject of debate whether "epicaricacy" is a word at all (hence the references to the OED); if it is a word, it is extraordinarily rare. It is unfortunate that the existing Schadenfreude article is largely about the word, rather than about the concept; however, that's all the more reason to merge useful information into it. AnturiaethwrTalk 19:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Anturiaethwr, epicaricacy is not, in fact, schadenfreude. If anything, it is the other way around. How's that? --evrik (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Nonsense. If Schadenfreude is epicaricacy, then epicaricacy is Schadenfreude. The two terms both refer to a state of joy at another's misfortune; you even admit above that they're synonyms. If you draw a distinction between the two, please tell me what it is. I'll be more than willing to change my recommendation. AnturiaethwrTalk 19:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Okay ...
- Aristotle cited Greek equivalent of epicaricacy as part of his classifaction of virtues and emotions.
- schadenfreude derives from the Middle High German schade and vreude
- The greek term was used by English writers as far back as 1261, which coincedentally was the same time as the usage of Middle High German. The terms are independent of each other in their development, history and usage. It is appropriate to have the articles link between each other, but they should remain separate. A good example of this is Zeus, Jupiter and Tinia. I could cite other examples. --evrik (talk) 19:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- That establishes a difference between the terms (which was never in dispute), not between the concepts to which they refer. Zeus, Jupiter, and Tinia have different articles because they are deities from different cultures (i.e. Zeus is a Greek god, and neither Roman nor Etruscan; Jupiter a Roman god, and neither Greek nor Etruscan; and Tinia an Etruscan god, and neither Roman nor Greek); their equivalence and similarities do not enter into the equation. I have yet to see a difference between epicaricacy ("a human psychological response that entails the rejoicing at, taking joy in, or getting pleasure from the misfortunes of others") and Schadenfreude ("enjoyment taken from the misfortune of someone else"). (These definitions leave either as a plausible translation of the original Greek word; that's what I meant by my "competing translations" comment above.) The difference in etymology is not at all relevant, unless the article is about the term, rather than about the concept. The article as it stands is about the concept, rather than the term (i.e. it does not fail WP:DICDEF); therefore, etymology is immaterial in this discussion. AnturiaethwrTalk 19:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Strong keep per all the reasons stated above. Somebody should slap Betsy's hands for abusing process. Sur de Filadelfia (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)- Keep in light of revisions made to the article since I first read it. It is now more an explanation of the emotion and where it fit in the original Greek cosmology of emotions than a simple definition, and as such, is a framework on which a more comprehensive article could be built. I think that in the long run, given the very close similarity of the two emotions, if this article is not merged with the one on Schadenfreude, some reference should be made in each to the other and the historical distinctions between the two terms/concepts. Marketstel (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment independent of above recommendation: I'm surprised at the level of hostility displayed in some of the discussion about this. If the intent of the original entry was to show that the concept embodied in the term Schadenfreude predated the coinage of the German word, then that in itself is useful, and an article on the concept like the one now here is valuable. But given that the word itself is used much less often in English -- I think that the OED and AHD references above are actually somewhat probative of that -- the people who would enjoy learning about this might not find it absent some connection to the more widely used term. Marketstel (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, no decent reason for deletion. Improvement since nomination noted. Stifle (talk) 19:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Redirect to schadenfreude as
((R from merge)), which I believe is required under GDFL since some new content has been merged there. Its meaning overlaps so closely with schadenfreude that they are synonyms, and it would be a violation of policy Wikipedia:Content forking to retain a separate article. Article content about the emotion should be merged there. Article content that is merely about etymology may find a good home on Wiktionary, but does not belong here. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC) - Weak keep. I'm going to [[WP:AGF|assume good faith on Betsy's nom, but I call keep in the first place on the sole grounds that AFD is not the forum for discussing redirect. No real reason to delete, and it's not purely a dicdef at this point. Improvements noted. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I feel it should be kept. The easy support of keeping it is that Schadenfreude is currently under copyright investigation. Redirecting to a page that is invalid surely is no way to solve the issue. Raider.adam (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC) contribs) 16:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- * Comment Schadenfreude is currently under copyright investigation only because it was placed there by Sur de Filadelfia who wants this debate to resolve to "keep." I admire Evrik's work to make the article epicaricacy better. Efforts to improve the status of epicaricacy by attacking the status of schadenfreude do not seem to me to be good Wikipedia practice. betsythedevine (talk) 16:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- * Comment I see the copyright has been removed, but I still retain a "keep" vote. I believe they etymology, historical and literary differences make them enough of a difference to warrant their own entries. The goal should be increasing the breadth of information, not narrowing. As long as both articles retain entries mentioning each other to allow the reader to progress, it works for me. Raider.adam (talk) 18:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It's a dandy word, and if it's good enough for Aristotle, it's good enough for me. There's enough unique content to merit a freestanding article and it would be too long a digression to include in the Schadenfreude article. In my humble opinion, your mileage may vary, etc. Lblanchard (talk) 18:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, but this article has a lot more info than a dictionary entry would. It has similarities to schadenfreude, but different roots, uses, and history. What's the harm in more content? Eagleapex (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment A lot of Keep votes seem to be coming in from Philadelphia. There is Evrik, plus Sur_de_Filadelphia, Marketstel, Raider.adam, and now Eagleapex, all showing up to favor of keeping this article, all with Philadelphia material prominent in their user pages or contributions. Yet among other commenters, the great majority has a different opinion. I'm also concerned that so many new arrivals have a mistaken idea about what is being discussed here. Nobody is claiming or has claimed that the epicaricacy article is just a dictionary definition. The point of the WP:NAD is something else entirely; that words with the same meaning get separate articles in a dictionary but not in an encyclopedia. Aristotle did not use the word "epicaricacy', he used the Greek word from which it is derived. Schadenfreude is not "a German word", it is a word of German origin now commonly used by many educated speakers of English and by the news media. Increasing the breadth of information in Wikipedia can be achieved by creating a single article that contains all our information about the emotion described, including an informative discussion of the inkhorn term "epicaricacy." betsythedevine (talk) 22:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- As I see it, with all due respect to the persons that are usually good contributors, there is a cabal because someone became infatuated in good faith, hopefully, with an idea that is blatantly false for those who are familiar with the concept and thing called schadenfreude. The idea is to replace the use in Wikipedia of the German word Schadenfreude by the use of the English word epicaricacy. It seems that rational argument are of no avail in this affair. That's why I voted in favor of deleting the entry Epicaricacy (or redirect or merge, but never let it go as a POV fork!). First, it is such a rare synonym of a 'current' English word that epicaricay is not worth an article by itself, and though it would not be an entry by itself, it would figure within the article Schadenfreude and thus could still be found in WP by a 'Search' rather than a 'Go' in the main search box. Second, a deletion would nip the cabal in the bud: otherwise, we might have to come back again and again for discussing a redirect or a merge or a split. Deleted article are a lot harder to recreate. Countering a cabal is not an argument for deletion, but since we are in the irrational... All this is really futile in some regards, but in some others what is at stake is the games people play. We all play games that are important for us, but at times we are all called to transcend our cherished games for the sake of our greater collective progress. So, please ladies and gentlemen, let's resolve this matter 'intrinsically', to the best of our knowledge. --Robert Daoust (talk) 00:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Just a note to mention that I've filed a suspected sockpuppetry report involving Sur de Filadelfia here. Oh, and Lblanchard is a Philadelphia user that you forgot to mention. Deor (talk) 02:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- As I see it, with all due respect to the persons that are usually good contributors, there is a cabal because someone became infatuated in good faith, hopefully, with an idea that is blatantly false for those who are familiar with the concept and thing called schadenfreude. The idea is to replace the use in Wikipedia of the German word Schadenfreude by the use of the English word epicaricacy. It seems that rational argument are of no avail in this affair. That's why I voted in favor of deleting the entry Epicaricacy (or redirect or merge, but never let it go as a POV fork!). First, it is such a rare synonym of a 'current' English word that epicaricay is not worth an article by itself, and though it would not be an entry by itself, it would figure within the article Schadenfreude and thus could still be found in WP by a 'Search' rather than a 'Go' in the main search box. Second, a deletion would nip the cabal in the bud: otherwise, we might have to come back again and again for discussing a redirect or a merge or a split. Deleted article are a lot harder to recreate. Countering a cabal is not an argument for deletion, but since we are in the irrational... All this is really futile in some regards, but in some others what is at stake is the games people play. We all play games that are important for us, but at times we are all called to transcend our cherished games for the sake of our greater collective progress. So, please ladies and gentlemen, let's resolve this matter 'intrinsically', to the best of our knowledge. --Robert Daoust (talk) 00:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment Inkhorn, isn't schadenfreude inkhoen as well? Really, you haven't made your point. Attacking other users again, and trying to discredit them doesn't prove your point either. Sur de Filadelfia (talk) 01:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- "Schadenfreude" used to be a pretty obscure word, but it has gained a lot of popularity over just the past decade. Ben Affleck and Lisa Simpson use the word "schadenfreude." Not even the OED includes "epicaricacy." So I do see a difference between the inhorn status of the two words. betsythedevine (talk) 10:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment Cabal? Really. Intrinsic value: this article has a lot more info than a dictionary entry would. That should settle it. Sur de Filadelfia (talk) 01:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Note. Sur de Filadelfia has been blocked as a sockpuppet of the indef-blocked user South Philly. I've therefore stricken out his contributions to this discussion. Deor (talk) 18:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete -- this word when used in English seems to be used as a transliteration of the Greek. There is a standard name used by English speakers for this concept: schadenfreude. DGG (talk) 14:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I have new information, hopefully. John Portmann published in 1999 a whole book about schadenfreude When Bad Things Happen to Other People. He said in a 2002 interview:
(...) English speakers have been loath to recognise Schadenfreude as a fact of their lives. In the English language, we’ve taken so many other German words on board – words like winter, and summer, and swimmer, and apple and angst, kindergarten what-have-you. I find it very interesting that we have tried to keep the word Schadenfreude out of the English language, when it is so vital to human experience.
It must be said, though, that Portmann in his book always uses schadenfreude as a German word, that is to say capitalized and italicized. Then, the word that appears in English since the nineteenth century was not fully naturalized yet in 1999. Perhaps this is another reason why Evrik and others are still trying to replace it (1,5 million Google results) with the supposedly more English word epicaricacy (7 tousands Google results). However, since 1999 an important trend has gained momentum. Robert Matuozzi was expressing this trend in his 2001 review of Portmann's book:Aristotle ties pleasure in the misfortune of others to spite (he specifically decries Schadenfreude, N.E. 2.6.18).
A pervasive social and psychological feature of modern times, Schadenfreude has recently migrated from the German language to American popular culture, with the word and the dynamic occasionally cropping up in movies and music, folklore, and to a lesser extent in newspapers and magazines, either explicitly or in cleverly contrived subtexts.
--Robert Daoust (talk) 18:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Summary of comments
- Keep - 10
- Delete - 5
- Merge (or redirect) - 3
-Sur de Filadelfia (talk • contribs) 01:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Are you counting votes? Why? AnturiaethwrTalk 03:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Just a note that if we are "counting," at least 6 of those 10 "keep" votes seem to come from Philadelphia. betsythedevine (talk) 11:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Just a note that the above comment is completely irrelevant. Unless sockpuppetry is proven, we don't discriminate based upon people's geographic locations. Johntex\talk 16:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- OK, well here is one that you will then agree should be taken of the list of "votes:" User:Sur_de_Filadelfia, who created this list, has been banned as a proven sock of banned user South Philly. There was also (in Dec. 2007) a Checkuser called to see if SouthPhilly might be a sockpuppet of Evrik, since both were involved in vote-stacking the same AfDs. betsythedevine (talk) 22:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Why I mention the Philadelphia connection: Wikipedia policy "It is considered highly inappropriate to advertise Wikipedia articles to your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you, so that they come to Wikipedia and support your side of a debate. If you feel that a debate is ignoring your voice, then the appropriate action is to avoid personal attacks, seek comments and involvement from other Wikipedians, or pursue dispute resolution. These are well-tested processes, designed to avoid the problem of exchanging bias in one direction for bias in another." betsythedevine (talk) 10:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you Betsy for bringing this to everyone's attention; however, I don't think it's too helpful to belabor this. While the sudden influx of Philedelphia related editors is worrisome, it doesn't necessarily indicate canvassing by Evrik. After all, editors that know him may simply have been alerted by the activity in his user talk page and decided to take a look at epicaricacy. What is more to the point is that all these supporters have failed to address the pertinent point: epicaricacy is not a real word. They have yet to demonstrate a single use of the word. The lack of usage is damning as far as epicaricacy's status as a word of the English language is concerned. As has been pointed out several times before, the usage demonstrated in the article is limited to usage of different transciptions (not "epicaricacy") of a Greek word. Saying "it's encyclopedic" or "this is a useful concept with its own history" (the main arguments of the supporters) do not address this. I don't see how essentially making up a word to describe the same concept as schadenfreude and then writing about the supposed etymology of the fake word is encyclopedic; I also don't see how using a different word to describe the same thing creates a different concept and thus a different article.
- If I was one to make a [[WP:POINT|point], I would go find some word in Icelandic synonymous with a well-known loan word from Japanese (like say, "honcho"), make up a transcription of it into English characters, then create a page on it with a "usage" section based on different transciptions of the Icelandic word, then replace all references to "honcho" with this other word claiming "honcho" is not an English word. Then when it is pointed out that "honcho" is indeed English while my word is obscure, I will then respond that "honcho" is Japanese and if that doesn't work, that my word should be kept since its etymology is Icelandic not Japanese, thus Wikipedia should have the valuable historical information about this English word of Icelandic origin separate from the Japanese origin. Then I will include quotes from ancient writings using the Icelandic word and claim this creates a different concept since clearly it predated the use of "honcho". That would bring us to the same ridiculous point we are at now. --C S (talk) 11:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- There certainly was canvassing going on here - that was how I came to be involved in this discussion and I am certain that this was the case with the other Philly users. Until reading the comment above, I was not aware of the canvassing guideline, but it makes sense. That said, I feel I was a neutral participant in this discussion and I stand by the opinions I've expressed. ike9898 (talk) 13:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Agree with Ike9898, there was canvassing going on here by Evrik. I was the recipient of a notification about this AfD and in the past a few others, asking for participation. --ImmortalGoddezz (t/c) 14:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- There certainly was canvassing going on here - that was how I came to be involved in this discussion and I am certain that this was the case with the other Philly users. Until reading the comment above, I was not aware of the canvassing guideline, but it makes sense. That said, I feel I was a neutral participant in this discussion and I stand by the opinions I've expressed. ike9898 (talk) 13:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- If I was one to make a [[WP:POINT|point], I would go find some word in Icelandic synonymous with a well-known loan word from Japanese (like say, "honcho"), make up a transcription of it into English characters, then create a page on it with a "usage" section based on different transciptions of the Icelandic word, then replace all references to "honcho" with this other word claiming "honcho" is not an English word. Then when it is pointed out that "honcho" is indeed English while my word is obscure, I will then respond that "honcho" is Japanese and if that doesn't work, that my word should be kept since its etymology is Icelandic not Japanese, thus Wikipedia should have the valuable historical information about this English word of Icelandic origin separate from the Japanese origin. Then I will include quotes from ancient writings using the Icelandic word and claim this creates a different concept since clearly it predated the use of "honcho". That would bring us to the same ridiculous point we are at now. --C S (talk) 11:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Merge This is getting old. Wikipedia only has one article per subject, and the above discussion doesn't seem to establish that this is anything but one subject. Lots of subjects have more than one name- it's not that difficult to deal with. The first sentence of the article can mention both names. ike9898 (talk) 19:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Merge (changing from "Delete" since good material has been created in epicaricacy). One article, the best we can make it, about this emotion. There are good reasons Wikipedia doesn't like to "fork" one subject into two articles. The best reason not to fork is the loss to our readers -- who find part of the information about this subject but also miss part of it because they didn't click through to the other article. betsythedevine (talk) 22:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Does that mean you're withdrawing your nomination? AnturiaethwrTalk 23:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Anturaethwr, thank you so much for your helpful explanation, which I just found on your talk page. If I had known about the page for inviting participation in a potentially controversial merger Wikipedia:Proposed_mergers, that would have met all my goals for what I wanted to do when I originally filed an AfD. If the experienced Wikipedian Evrik had directed my attention to that page instead of assuming I must know all about it and denouncing my bad faith, much later heat and unhappiness could have been short-circuited. I will withdraw my AfD as soon as I figure out how to replace it with a Merge and Redirect. Maybe that can bring consensus and civility to what has become a much-too-angry discussion. Once again, thank you so much for your civility and helpfulness. betsythedevine (talk) 08:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep I like the word. English Subtitle (talk) 23:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- So do I, but please read WP:ILIKEIT. AnturiaethwrTalk 23:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Note. Have stricken out the !vote of English Subtitle—self-admitted South Philly sock. Deor (talk) 23:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete -- looking at what the cited sources actually say, there's not much to indicate that the word "epicaricacy" actually exists. The old dictionaries cited spell it differently, Schadenfreude is equivalent in meaning. It doesn't appear in Merriam-Webster or the OED. At best this is a neologism hardly appropriate even for Wiktionary. --Stlemur (talk) 15:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
P.S. In the time I took to write this, Evrik retired. |
- Comment I undid/removed a long personal statement apparently from banned user Sur_de Philadelphia , which includes among other things the text of Evrik's canvassing email. If you want to read or respond to the statement, I moved the whole thing to Sur de Philadelphia's talk page.
- Merge and Redirect per WP:NAD. Dori (Talk • contribs) 20:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment on the long pink thing above: CS, seems to be afraid of losing the debate on the merits. Actually no. As I responded above, I wish to bring the discussion back to the relevant points of the AFD not about canvassing. That is why I wrote a long detailed response explaining what I thought was wrong with the "keep" arguments and gave an extended analogy to point out their flaws. You have chosen to ignore my argument, stating "The whole Icelandic discussion is pretty amusing because it isn't really true or applicable to this case, but hides an even bigger point [about bad faith behavior/nomination]". Then you chose to go on at length about this "even bigger point" rather than addressing the relevant points. Please explain why my example is "amusing" or not "really true or applicable". It seems to be entirely relevant as it demonstrates that there is no evidence Epicaricacy is an English word nor is it a different entity requiring a separate article. Just asserting that "the concepts ARE different" doesn't cut it. Give some evidence.
- The following comments will address the attacks on myself and others; those not interested can ignore them. Betsythedevine, Deor and CS have attacked Evrik, Sur de Filadelphia, Marketstel, Raider.adam, Eagleapex and Lblanchard. Um, no. Please show me where I have attacked any of these people. It's easy to conflate criticism of the article or faulty reasoning with an attack on someone, but that doesn't make it so. It's also easy to say that if someone points out a behavioral guideline was broken, that this is an attack. But that doesn't make it one either. I also don't believe Deor has attacked anyone either. Some of Betsy's actions could be taken as attacks, but it appears to me that the Evrik meatpuppets (whoever that includes) started the attacks. Betsy's actions are understandable (although not completely justified) in that context.
- Why have they done their best to discredit every contributor who has disagreed with them? I have not yet attempted to discredit anyone. But perhaps it is time. After all that has been said and done, do I believe that Evrik's motivations were pure? That he had the best interest of Wikipedia rather than a desire to be right or assert himself by his unilateral actions? No. Sometimes some people are more concerned about being right than doing what is good for Wikipedia. Perhaps Evrik justifies his actions as he is doing what is best for Wikipedia. but I have seen plenty of editors like him before. When they clearly are failing to convince anyone, their friends/sockpuppets log on, start making attacks on the other editors and disrupting Wikipedia. This is not the first time this has happened with Evrik and if he returns, probably not the last. Designating himself coordinator of WikiProject Awards by use of a meatpuppet (South Philly) when nobody agrees with his decisions and then getting in a revert war with everyone else. These are the actions of a petulant child, who when he doesn't get what he wants, decides he will play dirty pool to get it. What you say about this whole thing being "silly" is correct. None of us took this thing personally. For us, it was simply one of many decisions about the encyclopedia that is made on a daily basis. Simply a matter of policy and arguing policy. Somebody chose to take it personally and make it a war. Does it really matter to me if the article is kept? No. I believe that would be the wrong decision, but you won't see me log on later with sockpuppets and encouraging friends and family to come edit war. It should have just been business as usual, but somebody's idea of "business as usual" on Wikipedia is that "Wikipedia doesn't really work by consensus; it works by who gets the most votes. If someone is losing a vote, the best thing to do is swiftboat them." With an attitude like that, no wonder you can justify the way your group has been behaving. --C S (talk) 08:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Request for admin help to close AfD First, I would like to thank User:Anturiaethwr for real help in understanding the difference between WP:DELETE and WP:MERGE. The few AfD discussions I have been in often included people suggesting "Merge" so I did not realize there was a separate process, which would have been much less painful to Evrik if I had done that, for proposing a merger that was controversial and inviting outside comment. So I would like to withdraw this AfD and propose instead that the fine material Evrik added to epicaricacy be merged into schadenfreude, including of course mentioning the existence (in history and a few dictionaries at least) of the English word "epicaricacy." Then we will have one good article instead of a rivalry between two articles for content and inbound links. I have added this to WP:PM and added a discussion section at Talk:Epicaricacy#Merge. I would like to see the AfD notice at the top of "epicaricacy" replaced by a Merge notice, but I think an admin has to remove AfD first. betsythedevine (talk) 09:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- No problem! AnturiaethwrTalk 15:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- There's no need to close this AFD early. "Merge and redirect" is one of the possible outcomes at AFD. My support for "Redirect" above is in effect the same thing as merge; I only wrote "Redirect" because it seemed to me that all necessary content had already been merged at that point. As some content was first created at epicaricacy then added to schadenfreude, it is better to keep the edit history of epicaricacy to show who created it. "Merge and redirect" achieves that. It is also permissible to create a bare redirect after deletion, but that removes the edit history. Let's allow the debate to complete its normal course. Whether it ends in merge or delete, it forbids creating a WP:POVFORK article again. - Fayenatic (talk) 11:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to Schadenfreude. These are two words for the same emotion, no need for two articles. I have some doubts about "redirect" for such an inkhorn term, but redirects are cheap. JohnCD (talk) 13:42, 17 May 2008 (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.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forgive Her... (2nd nomination)
- 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 keep. This was a close and contntous one as evidenced by both the volume of discussion and the reluctance of admins (including myself yestarday) to close it before now. The conflict of interest concerns are grounds for rewriting but do not speak to whether the article should exist in the first place. At least one editor !voting keep suggested that the article could exist but not as written. There is no reason to delete such an article unless there are BLP or libel issues.
The personal attacks both here and on the article's talk page are reprehensible, but ultimately irrelvent to the notibility of the subject. I find the notability argument weak, but sufficient. Likewise the !votes narrowly come out in favor or retention. I think, in the end, the result should be clear. Hopefully, both sides can come together and produce an article that does not have the problems of the current version. --Selket Talk 23:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Mark Hanau[edit]
 | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)). |
- Mark Hanau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
WP:COI, "An article about a little-known band should preferably not be written by a band member or the manager." The article about Mark Hanau is written and edited by someone saying he's Mark Hanau (see comments in user contributions) and using Mark Hanau's website, aimultimedia.com. Editor has also edited or created numerous pages w/subjects he has a close personal connection to like airconditioning, saturnalia, curved air, liquid light shows, John Vickers, and Academy of Live and Recorded Arts. WP:NOTE Article does not establish notability of subject as per guidelines "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". WP:VER, claims not verifiable, some claims conflict with published accounts. Editor/subject uses [artistopia.com] as a source in this article and in other edited articles, but artistopia.com has Wikipedia as source. Before I deleted it, (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NME_Awards&oldid=209579910), subject placed an image of an invitation to an awards event and represented it as an actual award. WP:SOAPBOX, Aimulti/Hanau is engaging in self-aggrandizement I think by exaggeration, has claimed to have co-founded Paul McCartney's McCartney Productions, established a school (ARLA), won awards, and met "Berthold (sic) Brecht" with no support. WP:NOTMYSPACE, editor using Wikipedia to showcase himself. WP:PSTS, editor using primary sources without secondary source backup, such as a college prospectus to establish he "founded" the college 'tho secondary sources give different story. WP:OR, editor/subject scans primary documents and submits them via his company website, aimultimedia.com. WP:Living Many, like example Aimulti claims an actor is his daughter without source. RetroS1mone (talk) 04:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I did so with my daughters full permission. She is as angry about this slur as I am.Aimulti (talk) 15:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Again, please keep in mind that disclosure of personal information for any reason is in violation of Wikipedia's living persons policies. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 00:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
You refer to RetroS1mone as 'she'. May I ask how you knew this editor was female?Aimulti (talk) 15:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Admittedly, I don't, but the name "Simone" is female AFAIK. One could also ask why you assumed the editor was male, but the gender of your critic is irrelevant. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 00:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Lets stop pretending. I know who you are. Keeponkeepingon is your usual handle and you have hounded me for years on Yahoo Answers etc, etc. I took me I while to figure it out (must be getting old). Feel free to deny it (as I am sure you will) but we both know what this is about. Quite frankly I don't really care one way or another now that I know the nature of this action. Enjoy yourself. Aimulti (talk) 05:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- I am not "Keeponkeepingon" and I do not have any knowledge of "Keeponkeepingon." I have never written on Yahoo Answers. You are making unsubstantiated claims. I have defended your notability and tried to help improve the sourcing in your autobiography. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I can only comment on the section of the article regarding band management and picture discs, which I find informative, well-referenced, and certainly notable enough to qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia. I have no knowledge of Mark Hanau's life or career outside his involvement with Curved Air and Saturnalia but feel that to delete the entire article is extreme overkill and that a less-heated debate would enable the rest of the article to be brought up to the required standard. RGCorris (talk) 19:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- RGCorris, I agree with you that Mark Hanau's contribution to picture discs may be sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia with appropriate documentation. I will leave it to others to decide whether Hanau should have a biography article or should, rather, have his information merged into the other relevant articles. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 00:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Motives for attack on this article[edit]
discussion moved to Talk - Corvus cornixtalk 18:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Motives are irrelevant. The discussion here is whether or not this article meets Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Take extraneous discussion elswhere, it has no bearing on this discussion. I am moving the off-topic arguments to the Talk page. Corvus cornixtalk 18:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
NME AWARD[edit]
Not only did I provide a reference (the NME 1971 awards issue of NME), I also provided a scan of the actual invitation. NME only invited people to the awards who had won one. It was not like a Hollywood event, just a small reception room, some press and the presentation committee. Tony Blackburn (DJ) presented the awards. I have requested a back issue (the 1971 awards issue) from NME and also asked them to confirm Mark Hanau was the winner. How much more can you reference something? Wikipedia only requires a reference and I provided that and more. How many Wikipedia entries provide such solid references? Do I need Mark Hanau's DNA on the award and carbon dating? This is getting absurd!
Aimulti (talk) 04:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Absurd claim Sasha Hanau is not Mark Hanau's daughter[edit]
Aimulti, I have deleted the personal contact information you provided. Whether you are Sasha Hanau's father, as you claim to be, or not, Wikipedia prohibits disclosure of personal information. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 13:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Now I am confused. Not that it is directly relevant to the question of whether this article should be deleted or not, but near the top of this page, it is stated that the information on Sasha was mentioned with the consent of aimulti's daughter. But here, it is stated specifically that Sasha is not aimulti's daughter. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 21:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Sasha is Mark Hanau's daughter. Your link does not depute that. It was making fun of the absurd assertion she is not. I will add copy of her birth cert., as soon as it arrives from England. Sasha was willing to have her phone number listed and to confirm this in person but Wikipedia does not allow that. Her birth cert. is the best I can do. I would hardly claim to be her father, on Wikipedia, if I was not.Aimulti (talk) 00:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Mark, Toddst1 and I have referred you to WP materials on what is acceptable as documentation. Please do not post anyone's birth certificate or other personal information. Your daughter (or your parents, for that matter) has nothing to do with your notability, is not mentioned as your daughter in any reliable sources, and does not belong in this article. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 00:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
ALRA[edit]
Not only did I provide a reference from Kent Library naming the 'managers' of ALRA. They use the term for directors but also an image of the school prospectus showing Mark Hanau was Chairman of the Board (by law this information must be correct (Companies Act) and false information is a criminal act). In addition, every prospectus up to 1997 and all school stationary confirm this. In addition to that the company registary is public domain and can be easily checked. http://www.companies-house.gov.uk/toolsToHelp/findCompanyInfo.shtml
In addition every single issue of the weekly newspaper, Stage and Television Today (UK) has display advertisements for ALRA naming Mark Hanau as Chairman of the Board (from 1984 to 2001)
Aimulti (talk) 09:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Brecht[edit]
Provided three solid references (Newspaper and two University archives) showing that Mark Hanau's parents both worked with Brecht in East Berlin when Mark was a child. Removed line saying Mark met him (as this cannot be referenced) but who can doubt you meet someone who is working with your parents for over two years in a closed society like post war East Berlin? Aimulti (talk) 10:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Discussion of keep/toss[edit]
- Comment I will not vote on this deletion since I have been involved in editing the article, but I should note that since Retrosimone made her AfD post, Aimulti responded by disclosing the personal information of a third party whom he claims is his daughter, as well as additional unverified information on other third parties, here and on his Talk page ostensibly for verification purposes. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 13:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Very strong delete - Per WP:AUTO, WP:COI, WP:Personal information, WP:MUSIC, WP:VER and WP:NOTMYSPACE. asenine say what? 16:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - while a bit high on puffery, certainly Mr. Hanau seems notable enough for an article. Has references to some reliable sources, some less reliable sources, and some facts need sources. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Delete: Super high on puffery and most of the citations don't support Hanau's involvement. I started trying to clean up the article, removing errant citations that didn't support the article on Hanau, but quickly came to the conclusion that the article would be better deleted. If he's notable (probably is), start over and with proper citations that support relevant statements with reliable sources. Toddst1 (talk) 18:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. I have to express concern regarding the discussion of this AFD which has turned more into the type of thing you'd expect to see on the article's talk page or at WP:RFC and some of the discussion is starting to ring WP:BLP alarm bells that have nothing to do with the article at hand. Also, COI states "preferably", it doesn't ban articles written by the subject. In fact I'm pretty sure there's a wikipolicy saying they're welcome as long as they have sources, etc etc. I can't cast an informed opinion as to the viability of this article as I'm not familiar enough with the subject matter. 23skidoo (talk) 19:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: A quick, cursory search of the databases of the Montgomery County, Md. Public Library databases shows one article mentioning a different Mark Hanau (managing director of an investment firm). A search of news.google.com revealed no results. A search of scholar.google.com revealed 6210 results; within the first 10 of these results, there is a link to a patent for a method of manufacturing audio and video discs. Finally, if the subject of the article wants to be deleted, then I'd vote for a weak "delete" (but if User:Aimulti is, in fact, Mr. Hanau, then it would appear from the debate that the opposite is true). 69.140.152.55 (talk) 21:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
ALRA is in LONDON, England. (Not. Montgomery County, Maryland). Simply check the public record on-line data base. I provided a link as a reference. Direct link. http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/8d44684a52dcc89a24cdbbd0d9d3c8f2/compdetails. The information costs $1. I will buy it a post a link.Aimulti (talk) 22:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. References available to online search do not at this time appear to support claims in article. If offline references can be verified there may be a possibility of retention after rewrite to match those sources. Some direct claims, however, such as the naming of Curved Air, are directly contradicted by available sources. --Dhartung | Talk 21:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I never claimed to have named Curved Air. Francis Monkman did. I simply claimed that I added Sonja (she confirms that on her page). Aimulti (talk) 22:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep A notable person and no reason to doubt anyone's good faith. BUT 2 pieces of artwork are copyrighted by Mark Hanau, we will have to take steps to confirm that User Aimulti has the right to license them. And moreover this user should not be allowed to edit their article anymore: if necessary they should be blocked from doing so. Sorry Mark, but if you can't see that you're too personally involved, everyone else can. --Simon Speed (talk) 13:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: It appears that this opinion was canvassed. See User_talk:Simonxag#Your_request_and.. Toddst1 (talk) 13:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Does Wikipedia ban contributors asking for each other's support ? RGCorris (talk) 14:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- See WP:CANVAS: "messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and are generally considered disruptive." Aimulti engaged in a subcategory of canvassing known as "campaigning." He selectively notified at least two editors who agreed with him on other issues or whom he had assisted with other requests and asked them to give his autobiography a thumbs up. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Mark Hanau's involvement with Curved Air and Saturnalia and the picture discs is sufficient to confirm notability. Sensible editing of inappropriate parts of the entry - with properly-explained reasons for doing so - would deal with most of the areas complained of. RGCorris (talk) 14:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Very strong delete - Per WP:AUTO, WP:COI, WP:Personal information, WP:MUSIC, WP:VER and WP:NOTMYSPACE. Also, see Mark on AIDS Myth Exposed, planning covert operations[1] against wikipedia. (http://groups.msn.com/aidsmythexposed/activism.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=34105&LastModified=4675672689297989029 )—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nocontroversy (talk • contribs) 19:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
COMMENT ON ABOVE. Your link shows no such thing. Aids Myth Exposed does not even have a member with that name. I checked. I also note Nocontroversy is yet another member who has only edited on the topic of 'AIDS' (except one small ski edit). Funny how everyone voting for delete has the same edit history. Aimulti (talk) 21:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Aimulti and Nocontroversy, please restrict your comments to discussion of this article. What Mark said under what pseudonym where is irrelevant here. Thank you, Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I note you (Keepcalmandcarryon) started the thread referenced above. QUOTE: -From: keepcalmandcarryon (Original Message) Sent: 4/26/2008 11:44 AM I'm sure y'all have noticed that, despite its claim to maintain a "neutral point of view", Wikipedia's articles relating to AIDS dissidence are biased (see for example the entry on Celia Farber). In honor of Rethinking AIDS day I am going to make time to do some editing and adding of needed references, and I encourage others to do the same! THIS WHOLE THING IS BEGINNING TO STINK MORE AND MORE. Aimulti (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- STRONG KEEP This article is heavily refrenced and does not meet the deletion policy of wikipedia. None of the events or facts are exagerated, and all of the topics are historic and should be kept on wikipedia. All the links and refrences checked out. It seems that the users that have put this page up for deletion have a personal vendetta with the author and should be excluded on editing this article, as they appear to be editing with an extreme bias. 75.83.214.6 (talk) 09:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
THAT IS A TOTAL LIE. Aimulti (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Please see talk page, "Elephant in the Room." Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
COMMENT. I did not ask this person to get involved UNLIKE the members of DAG Exposed (MSN Group) who have organized this campaign against me. Aimulti (talk) 21:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. The relentless promotion of this article by possibly COI-affected editors makes it hard to get a clear view of the subject matter. There is a large reference list, but the criterion for inclusion there must have been set very low. A serious full-length review of Mark Hanau's work in a reliable source might persuade me to change my vote. If the article is kept, a lot of puffery will need to be removed. EdJohnston (talk) 18:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
COMMENT. If this REALLY was about references than may I ask why the Mark Hanau bio with over 30 is the target of so much attention? Compare it to the vastly longer article: - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Mullins_(musician) with not a single reference. This same situation is common throughout Wikipedia. Seems like a double standard or could the motive be as I have claimed? Aimulti (talk) 03:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- KEEP. The REAL objection is a fanatical vendetta by members of a special interest group. Every article I have contributed has been targeted. A good example is Peace News. This article was totally original in content (even the paper's web site had no history). Well referenced and had no 'self promotion' as these people claim whenever they can. It was targeted simply because I contributed it. The same is true of several other articles. A PURE HATE CAMPAIGN - Plain and simple! Aimulti (talk) 21:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Aimulti I tried to explain you twice the copyright problem. [38] but you are not listening. At Peace News you copied directly from the Brock archives [39]. Thats not "totally original in content". Its plagiarism. So much it puts all your stuff in doubt. Every edit I made is from copyright or plagiarism or POV. RetroS1mone (talk) 23:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Hugh Brock provided that material to the library service for the sole purpose of providing a history of Peace News. I only referenced a few facts from the archive and the rest was from other sources. You are using every trick in the book to target my editions. If I don't use referenced material you delete it and if I do you still delete it. No article on Wikipedia is possible on this basis as you well know. I could tear Wikipedia apart using your criteria for deletion.
I don't care anymore what you do as I have decided NEVER again to contribute to Wikipedia or even look at it. I was suckered back last time but that was a VERY silly error on my part. With you and your little gang of thugs hounding me, I am wasting my time here. You are a really vicious and sick lady and nothing you do will change what I have achieved in my life (or am about to achieve). I now hope that this final article is deleted so you and your bullyboy/bullygirl buddies have nothing left to vandalize. In short, GO TO HELL. (Hope you get me banned for that comment - I am sure you can). Aimulti (talk) 03:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Aimulti you copied section from the Hugh Brock archives. Not "referenced a few facts". Same what you did with John Vickers and other plagiarism I found. You have an agenda at wikipedia to change AIDS info and the peace news and the rest is to make your self an established editor. You said it yourself on your Paul King account at the AIDS myth cite. So you don't care enough about those articles to do a good job you just copy. A good strategy but not what Wikipedia is for. RetroS1mone talk 15:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - per WP:VER and WP:RS. Although the article "looks" good, so many of the cited sources are questionable that it's hard to imagine the article really establishes independent notability of Mr. Hanau. The use of primary sources is particularly troublesome as the general policy is for people NOT to create or substantially contribute to articles about themselves. It is important for us to always keep in mind that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. These sources are - especially taken together - not sufficient to meet this bar, especially for a WP:BLP. Notes - I read the article and checked the majority of its sources to establish my position. I did this and decided my position before reading the controversy which appears on this page (most of which I ignored anyway). (Having read the nom, I was aware of the accusation that it is largely self-edited.) In addition, per the template near the top, I was not solicited to look at this page; rather, it was the last WP:AFD left for its date. Frank | talk 18:09, 21 May 2008 (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.
References[edit]
- 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. Even after discounting several single purpose accounts, we do not have a consensus to delete. Any POV and sourcing problems the article might have can be remedied by editing, renaming or merging it, all of which do not require deletion. These problems (if any) do not appear to be so fundamental as to require outright deletion despite the lack of a consensus for deletion. If the TV programme is perceived to be more notable than the event itself, the article can be rewritten to focus on the programme. Sandstein 08:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Killings at Coolacrease[edit]
| If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)). |
- Killings at Coolacrease (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is an unsalvageable mish-mish of an article, a pile of original research, synthesis and POV-pushing about an obscure incident near the end of the Irish War of Independence whose only claim to notability is that it was the subject of a controversial TV programme produced and broadcast late last year by RTÉ. I think that there are good grounds for believing that the TV program itself is notable — there is plenty of substantial coverage in reliable sources, including articles in most of Ireland's major national newspapers.
However, the article was created as an article about the historical event, and there are insufficient reliable secondary sources to support such an article. The sources available consist of two memoirs by people whose families were involved in different sides of the conflict, one transcript of any indymedia debate led by Pat Muldowney (of whom more anon), and a pile of primary sources published on indymedia. At no stage in the discussions on the article's talk pages has anyone offered any evidence that there exists any impartial, scholarly account of the events; all that we have is the pile of material generated by the protagonists, and suggestions that something more solid may be forthcoming in the future.
The existence of this article are completely bound up in the debate over the TV programme, and it is being used a battleground by at least one of the protagonists in that controversy. The programme provoked a heated debate in Ireland, not least from two individuals (Paddy Heaney and Pat Muldowney), who claimed that the program was biased, and lodged unsuccessful complaints with Ireland's Broadcasting Complaints Commission.[45] Muldowney also engaged in the public debate in the press, and wrote extensively about the TV programme on indymedia, strongly opposing the programme and setting out what he believed was a more accurate presentation of the history.
So far so good; there's nothing at all wrong with anyone participating passionately in a public debate. However, the wikipedia problems began when Pat Muldowney (talk · contribs) began to summarise his views in a wikipedia article. It is to Muldowney's credit that he registered in his own name, but as a vocal protagonist in the public controversy, he had a clear conflict of interest and should have refrained from editing the article. Unfortunately, repeated requests for him to do so have been unsuccessful, and after the article was substantially revised by others he removed most of the additions.
Muldowney may not be the only editor here with an outside involvement with this issue. Other contributions, largely supporting Muldowney, have been made by Knockanore (talk · contribs), only one of whose 15 contributions is not to this article or its talk page. Yet another single-purpose account is User:Feint, who has made substantial edits to the article but not participated in any discussions, and there is also Spleen&ideal (talk · contribs). I don't think that I have ever seen so many single-purpose accounts at work on an article.
I tried myself to add some balance to the article, but apart from the difficulties involved in discussion with editors apparently uninterested in wikipedia policies, I eventually concluded that there not enough sources to allow an article on anything other than the TV programme.
As above, I think that there is a theoretical possibility that a properly-sourced article could be written on the TV program. However, the latest edits have removed nearly all coverage of the TV program, leaving this version, which is an appalling mishmash of original research and synthesis primarily written by an editor with a huge COI, and relying in large part on indymedia sources and on the accounts Alan Stanley and Paddy Heaney (neither of whom is a professional historian, both of whom is writing about their own relatives).
It may be that in future there will be sufficient published scholarship to allow a properly-sourced article to be written about the historical event, but as of now, there isn't. What we have here is a travesty of many wikipedia policies, and it should be deleted. If kept, it will continue to be abused as a vehicle for various POV-pushers with vested interests to promote the original research on which this article is founded. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Wikipedia is not censored and the above is simply not a Reason for deletion. 82.36.178.185 (talk) 23:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Reply. Did you read those reasons for deletion? If you read them, you'll see that the list there isn't intended to be exhaustive, and that it includes "Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources" and "Articles for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed". Now, re-read the nomination, and note the emphasis I have place in the lack of reliable sources, and the use of original research. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Professor Richard English says The details of the killings make this a particular ghastly episode even if someone was broadly sympathetic with IRA and republicanism. It would seem he was able to find reliable sources to back his claim - but then again he is only a professional historian and not an admin. 82.36.178.185 (talk) 08:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- That link illustrates my point very nicely. The Daily Mirror article is useless as a historical source on the killings themselves, but contains several notable comments on the TV programme. It's one of dozens of references which could be used to write an article on the TV programme and the subsequent debate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Professor Richard English says The details of the killings make this a particular ghastly episode even if someone was broadly sympathetic with IRA and republicanism. It would seem he was able to find reliable sources to back his claim - but then again he is only a professional historian and not an admin. 82.36.178.185 (talk) 08:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Reply. Did you read those reasons for deletion? If you read them, you'll see that the list there isn't intended to be exhaustive, and that it includes "Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources" and "Articles for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed". Now, re-read the nomination, and note the emphasis I have place in the lack of reliable sources, and the use of original research. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
No Deletion, No Gagging. I've checked through the article again to see if there is any valid reason for deletion. I just can't see it. The basic historical facts on which all sources agree are given and cited. Areas of disagreement are listed and appropriate sources for each side cited, without any indication of editorial preference that I can detect.
The sources cited are good. One of the main sources is the academic work of Philip McConway which is published by the highly regarded Offaly Historical and Archaeological Society, and is readable off their website. The cited work of Paddy Heaney is published by the same society and its affiliates.
The main sources for the opposing case are Alan Stanley's 2005 book (cited in the original article), and Eoghan Harris's October 9 2005 Sunday Independent article. Maybe the Harris article is a more WP-appropriate citation than Alan Stanley's book. But Harris's article is just a resumé of Stanley's book, and I think the latter should also be cited.
The list of citations in the article includes documents in the public domain (Public Records Office etc) which are selectively quoted in most discussions about the 1921 incidents. These sources are cited in the article without drawing any conclusions or implications from them – no analysis.
These sources have been placed in the public domain by the authority of two states – the Irish and British. It is reasonable to quote from them provided the quotes are accurate and balanced. One of the merits of the article was that, in effect, it quoted them in full (by means of hyperlinks) but without drawing conclusions from them. It is a mistake to remove those links, in my opinion.
There has been far too much ad hominem argument here. Knockanore (talk) 09:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC) — Knockanore (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- ReplyKnockanore, one of the reason that new editors are cautioned against participating in deletions debates is that new editors lack familiarity with the policies and guidelines on which such decisions are made. Please read WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOR. What a wikipedia article needs is reliable secondary sources ... and the only source offered so far which comes anywhere close to meeting that test is a two-part article in the local newspaper in County Offaly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- PS Knockanore, you claim that the Offaly Historical and Archaeological Society is "highly regarded". Any evidence in reliable sources for that assertion, or that its publications are the subject of the professional peer review and fact-checking discussed in Wikipedia:V#Reliable_sources? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Keep This article is only deemed unsalvagable by user BrownHairedGirl because it does not fit her own political ideology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.117.143.33 (talk) 09:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC) — 143.117.143.33 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Please don't make assumptions about my political ideology. My objections are to the lack of proper sources, and the use of the article to promote the perspective of the protagonists in a political controversy, when the controversy itself is the most notable aspect of the whole thing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- ...in your (humble?) opinion.82.36.178.185 (talk) 13:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- No, not in my opinion: on the basis of the extent of coverage in reliable sources, per wikipedia's notability guidelines. One of the problems caused by the participation of single-purpose accounts in deletion debates is that such editors are often unaware of wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- I am refering to your opinion that the controversy itself is the most notable aspect of the whole thing I'm sorry you need to Bite the above for their inexperience of Wikilawyering.82.36.178.185 (talk) 15:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- No, not in my opinion: on the basis of the extent of coverage in reliable sources, per wikipedia's notability guidelines. One of the problems caused by the participation of single-purpose accounts in deletion debates is that such editors are often unaware of wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- ...in your (humble?) opinion.82.36.178.185 (talk) 13:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Please don't make assumptions about my political ideology. My objections are to the lack of proper sources, and the use of the article to promote the perspective of the protagonists in a political controversy, when the controversy itself is the most notable aspect of the whole thing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
←If you read Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Discussion, you will see that it says clearly that "relevant facts and evidence are welcome from anyone but the opinions of anonymous and/or suspiciously new users may be discounted by the closing admin". You have offered no facts or evidence; all you have offered is an unfounded allegation of a political agenda on the part of an established editor.
The main purpose of a deletion debate is to assess whether an article complies with wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and it is a problem that your replies here do not address the lack of reliable sources on the incident itself, and consequent failure to meet the notability guidelines. Instead of addressing those issues, you have chosen to claim (without any evidence) that I have some political ideology which is being brought to bear on the debate.
In terms of reliable secondary sources for the event, the closet we have anything which would meet WP:N is two articles in a low-circulation local newspaper:
- Philip McConway (7 November 2007). "The Pearsons of Coolacrease, pt. 1". Tullamore Tribune.
- Philip McConway (14 November 2007). "The Pearsons of Coolacrease, pt. 2". Tullamore Tribune.
That's it. There is nothing else to establish the notability of the 1921 events, apart from primary sources and a bunch of unreliable sources
... but to establish the notability of the TV documentary we have:
- David Adams (9 November 2007). "Diehards reveal true colours". The Irish Times. Retrieved 2004-04-24.
- Eoghan Harris (9 October 2005). "This tree has rotten roots and bitter fruit". Sunday Independent. Retrieved 2008-04-24.
- Niamh Sammon (25 November 2005). "Unfounded claims about killings". Letters column, The Sunday Independent. Retrieved 2008-04-24.
*Eoghan Harris (11 November 2005). "Why bodies buried deep in the green bog must be raised". Sunday Independent. Retrieved 2008-04-24.
* David Adams (9 November 2007). "Diehards reveal true colours". The Irish Times. Retrieved 2004-04-24. - Niamh Sammon (25 November 2005). "Unfounded claims about killings". Letters column, The Sunday Independent. Retrieved 2008-04-24.
- History Ireland, January-February 2008
- More coverage in the Irish Independent
- "'Time for truth on murders'". Belfast Newsletter. 14 November 2007. Retrieved 2004-04-24.
- "Can we learn the lessons of history?". The Western People. 31 October 2007. Retrieved 2004-04-24.
- Lots more coverage in the Irish Times
- Lynne Kelleher (21 October 2007). "30 IRA men shot two farm brothers in the groin and left them to". Sunday Mirror. Retrieved 2008-04-24.
Plus less reliable sources such as:
- The Tubrity Show (22 October 2007). "Niamh Sammon director of The Killing at Coolacrease tells Ryan about the lives and deaths of Richard and Abraham Pearson". RTE. Retrieved 2004-05-02.
- Mention of the documentary in an Oireachtas debate: "Order of Business - 24th October 2007". David Norris's website. Retrieved 2008-04-24.
- Martin Mansergh (7 January 2008). "Hidden History debate casts light into some dark corners". Irish Examiner letters. Retrieved 2004-04-24.
... plus the fact that on 18 April 2008, the television documentary The Killings at Coolacrease won an International Hugo Television Award (Gold Plaque in the Documentary: History and Biography category), run as part of the 44th Chicago International Film Festival (see RTE (18 April 2008). "RTÉ Wins International Hugo Awards". RTE. Retrieved 2008-04-28.)
Despite all this evidence, you and the other single-purpose editors such as Knockanore are arguing that the TV documentary is not notable, but the event is? Please, if you are going to reply, do take some time to read WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:SYN and then the notability guidelines at WP:N. That way you might have something to say about the deletion criteria rather than making inaccurate guesses about my alleged "political ideology". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- You and the other single-purpose editors such as Knockanore are arguing that the TV documentary is not notable - Where? 82.36.178.185 (talk) 16:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- You above, others on the article's talk page. OH, and BTW, don't edit other contributors' comments. (see WP:TPG). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- You and the other single-purpose editors such as Knockanore are arguing that the TV documentary is not notable - Where? 82.36.178.185 (talk) 16:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Deletion is for trivia, stuff like pop-groups no one has heard of.--GwydionM (talk) 16:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Reply. Trivia is only one of many possible grounds for deletions: see some of the others listed at Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons_for_deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. This article should be deleted for all the reasons mentioned above by BrownHairedGirl. A new article should first give brief outline of event (as there are very little secondary sources) and then the bulk of the article should be based around the subsequent debate. As I've mentioned elsewhere, this (the debate) is how an unknown story came to a wider audience - Anybody doing a Wiki search on the subject would almost certainly be aware of the documentary and media coverage.
...also a point made in the discussion that has cause for concern. It was said that one contributing historian to the documentary was unhappy with it while "none of the other professional historians has publicly defended it". There is an inference that because they haven't defended it, they are distancing themselves from it. It would be a mistake to come to this conclusion. Feint (talk) 17:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC) — Feint (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment I should stress that the quality of the TV documentary is not relevant to its notability. Whether it is a brilliant piece of research or a pile of tendentious nonsense, what matters is its notability, which is established though the copious refs on the subsequent controversy. I would argue strongly against any suggestion that TV documentary be regarded as a reliable source on matters of history, other than in exceptional circumstances ... and in this case the notability of the programme stems in large part from the controversy over its reliability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep. The subject is important enough to induce, on a quick count, ten history professionals to involve themselves publicly in it. Two of them have published on the subject. (Regarding the separate issue of the TV programme, no history professional that I know of has defended it publicly, and five that I know of have publicly declared it to have no merit as history.) Pat Muldowney (talk) 21:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC) — Pat Muldowney (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Reply Pat, it's interesting to see you still continuing to use wikipedia to promote your campaign against the TV programme, but it's disappointing that you still appear not to have read any of the wikipedia guidelines on which this nomination is based. The involvement of history professionals does not establish notability; what does establish notability is substantial coverage in reliable sources. The event has only one piece of coverage which comes close to being a reliable source; whereas has the TV programme has lots of coverage in reliable sources (which is a different issue from whether the programme itself is reliable).
After covering the article you created with refs to unreliable sources and to your own self-published work, you are still at it: you claim that five historians have publicly denounced the TV programme, but offer no evidence for that assertion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)- CommentBHG please read How to avoid being a "biter". You state You are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns; then when a newbie endeavours to follow this, you wholesale revert with ad hominen attacks. 82.36.178.185 (talk) 22:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Reply. The edit of mine to which you link is the boilerplate AFD notice, and it does not override COI issues. The edit which I reverted did not address those concerns, it reinserted copious references to partisan and unreliable sources. If you are concerned about helping new editors, then you may want to take some time to try explaining to Muldowney about wikipedia policies; I have already tried at great length, as you would see if you read the article talk page. There is nothing "ad hominem" about drawing attention to the fact that an edit breaches wikipedia policies has been made in pursuit an acknowledged conflict of interest. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment You posted the boilerplate plate - if it meant jackshit to you in this particular instance, a personal note disclaiming it could have been left. A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor. You well know the Sword of Damocles is above this article. Your aim, as shown here, is to have this article removed. What motivation have you to allow improvements? Can you not see that any edit you make to this article while it is under AfD is conflicting with your interests. If you desist from editing the article while the AfD is open I will endeavour to assist Pat to the best of my abilities. 82.36.178.185 (talk) 00:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Reply. It is not my aim to have this article removed; my aim is to remove the use on unreliable sources, original research and synthesis to create an article in pursuit of a POV. I believe that deletion is the best way to resolve that, but while deletion is being discussed, the article continues to use unreliable sources because you just reinstated them without addressing their unreliability, and those sources should be removed to avoid misleading anyone who reads the article now. I don't know what sort of help you intend to give Pat, but if your idea of help consists of reinstating unreliable sources into an article, don't expect me to think that your help is beneficial to wikipedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Reply. The edit of mine to which you link is the boilerplate AFD notice, and it does not override COI issues. The edit which I reverted did not address those concerns, it reinserted copious references to partisan and unreliable sources. If you are concerned about helping new editors, then you may want to take some time to try explaining to Muldowney about wikipedia policies; I have already tried at great length, as you would see if you read the article talk page. There is nothing "ad hominem" about drawing attention to the fact that an edit breaches wikipedia policies has been made in pursuit an acknowledged conflict of interest. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- CommentBHG please read How to avoid being a "biter". You state You are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns; then when a newbie endeavours to follow this, you wholesale revert with ad hominen attacks. 82.36.178.185 (talk) 22:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep.The suggestion that this page should be deleted is demonstrably absurd. Why is BrownHairedGirl carrying on a one girl campaign against this subject. It is somewhat obsessional. If she is so keen to celebrate a television programme, why not go off and start a page on the subject. I suggest she will have it all to herself - happy days for everyone, no need for this censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomath (talk • contribs) 21:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Reply Rather than making claims of censorship, why not address some some of the relevant policy points? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Reply. Because you are a policy pedant, searching for procedures that justify censorship. Is there a policy or procedure to describe that? I have better things to do than consider such nonsense. BTW, if this is Pat Muldowney's first venture into Wikipedia (people have to start somewhere), I doubt that he is getting much encouragement to persevere, given your obsession. What is your beef? Please go away for a while and let the page develop and then settle down. Maybe you have given up your foolish campaign. I see you are back editing the page. Hardly logical if you want it deleted. Nomath —Preceding comment was added at 22:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Reply WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, please. My beef is that wikipedia is being abused by a high-profile protagonist in a public controversy to push his POV, using unreliable sources and original research to create an article on a non-notable subject, using the title of a topic which is notable. And indeed, I have edited the page, to remove more of the unreliable sources on which the article is based. If you think that upholding the need for reliable sources is censorship, then you are free to go and try to have the fundamental policy WP:V changed or abolished. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Reply. I hope I am not being uncivil when I now term you an entirely inconsistent policy pedant. You have just deleted a couple of references from the Sunday Independent, while you have left in others. The difference is, presumably, that you approve of the ones you have left in, and disagree with the ones you have censored. You deleted a reference I put in to a review of your celebrated television programme, and then reinserted it. Thank you so much. How about now reinserting the Sunday Independent refs as well. Have you got something against Mr Muldowney.? Do you know him? Have you a special desire to make life a misery for people who are trying to do their best. Or perhaps you have your own pet point of view, which you are hiding behind your professed policy wonk concern for procedure and acronyms. Maybe you are a low profile protagonist. I hope you don't consider this uncivil. Maybe I should be banned too. Nomath —Preceding comment was added at 23:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Reply Nomath, please can you comment on the comments, not on the contributors, and refrain from personal attacks. After removing a whole load of references to an unreliable source (Heaney's book), I noticed that in the process a ref to a reliable source had been removed, so I reinstated it. Why do you have a problem with that?
As to Muldowney, I object strongly to any conduct, from whatever POV, which amounts to using wikipedia as a campaigning tool, as Muldowney has down. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Reply Nomath, please can you comment on the comments, not on the contributors, and refrain from personal attacks. After removing a whole load of references to an unreliable source (Heaney's book), I noticed that in the process a ref to a reliable source had been removed, so I reinstated it. Why do you have a problem with that?
- Reply. I hope I am not being uncivil when I now term you an entirely inconsistent policy pedant. You have just deleted a couple of references from the Sunday Independent, while you have left in others. The difference is, presumably, that you approve of the ones you have left in, and disagree with the ones you have censored. You deleted a reference I put in to a review of your celebrated television programme, and then reinserted it. Thank you so much. How about now reinserting the Sunday Independent refs as well. Have you got something against Mr Muldowney.? Do you know him? Have you a special desire to make life a misery for people who are trying to do their best. Or perhaps you have your own pet point of view, which you are hiding behind your professed policy wonk concern for procedure and acronyms. Maybe you are a low profile protagonist. I hope you don't consider this uncivil. Maybe I should be banned too. Nomath —Preceding comment was added at 23:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Reply WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, please. My beef is that wikipedia is being abused by a high-profile protagonist in a public controversy to push his POV, using unreliable sources and original research to create an article on a non-notable subject, using the title of a topic which is notable. And indeed, I have edited the page, to remove more of the unreliable sources on which the article is based. If you think that upholding the need for reliable sources is censorship, then you are free to go and try to have the fundamental policy WP:V changed or abolished. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Reply. Because you are a policy pedant, searching for procedures that justify censorship. Is there a policy or procedure to describe that? I have better things to do than consider such nonsense. BTW, if this is Pat Muldowney's first venture into Wikipedia (people have to start somewhere), I doubt that he is getting much encouragement to persevere, given your obsession. What is your beef? Please go away for a while and let the page develop and then settle down. Maybe you have given up your foolish campaign. I see you are back editing the page. Hardly logical if you want it deleted. Nomath —Preceding comment was added at 22:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep While it is distressing than some editors are usning the article for POV pushing, that is not a ground for deletion. The article is well sourced and the comments from other posters in this debate show additonal sources exist. Edward321 (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Question Can you explain more by what you mean by "well-sourced"? As explained above, the article sources consist of several references for tangential points (such as the results of the 1918 election), a bunch of primary sources, a two-part article in a local newspaper, and copious references to a book by Pat Heaney, a local man one of who claims that one of his family was shot by the Pearsons. To me, that looks like the only remotely reliable secondary source is the two-part newspaper article, and nobody has suggested any other reliable secondary sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep If it happened & was significant we can write an article. NPOV might be best served if the people now involved in it stepped back a little. DGG (talk) 00:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep There is a question as to whether the events described occurred or not. The RTE programme failed to meet basic standards of accuracy and fairness, leaving hundreds of thousands of people with an inaccurate view of history. This was done deliberately with a view to distorting, not clarifying what happened. Apparently, very lax or even non-existent standards of research ethics were applied in this programme. Now BHG wants to apply impossibly high standards to a well-researched and balanced entry that sets the record straight and attempts undo some of the harm done by that ill-advised programme, while condoning those that were applied in the RTE programme. It seems to have been forgotten by BHG that an encyclopaedia entry should strive as far as possible for the truth. The evidence and arguments for this entry are far superior to anything that has been attempted by the supporters of the RTE programme. An outsider can only wonder that some Irish citizens should be so concerned to conceal the truth about an event at a key point in their country's history that they should go to such lengths as this. This is a blatant attempt at censorship with the intention, one suspects of preventing the utter discrediting of the RTE programme and any subsequent attempts to revive it or something along those lines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukobserver (talk • contribs) 13:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC) — Ukobserver (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Reply. Wow, yet another single-purpose account pitching in here. Ukobserver is not a new editor, so he/she is probably unaware of wikipedia policies, which is why every one of the arguments made by Ukobserver directly opposes wikipedia policies.
Firstly, wikipedia's a standard is not truth, it's verifiability (see WP:V). "Setting the record straight" by "discrediting of the RTE programme" is a blatant breach of WP:NPOV. Finally, you may or may or may be right that the RTE programme was a pile of nonsense, but it's not up to you or me use to use original research to prove or disprove that point; wikipedia is a tertiary source, and it reports the analyses which have already been published in secondary sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)- Reply. It astonishes me BHG, that you cannot see that your attacks on Muldowney constitutes one large personal attack - sauce for goose and gander I am afraid. You argue incessantly against his efforts to the point of absurdity - your reference above to removing what you construe as an 'unreliable source' is high handedness of a breath taking quality. You are a one girl band. I have checked today: Muldowney was writing on this subject long before there was a television programme or any mention of one. The point is that you and he have a different point of view, but you are masking yours through acts of procedural superiority, sarcasm and editorial obsession. Why not just accept it, and attempt a rapprochement with the good Doctor. I'm sure you can work it out. Please do, for all our sakes. I take it that the campaign of censorship is now over, as you have been editing the offending page?? Please say yes. Nomath (talk) 16:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Reply Nomath, you are having great fun accusing me of all sorts of things ... but in the midst of your tirades, you have not once addressed wikipedia's policies other than to dismiss them. Wikipedia is not a blog or a web-hosting service, nor is it indymedia. It is an encyclopedia, with policies covering content and sources. There is no censorship in insisting that wikipedia articles are referenced to reliable sources, and that it is not used by Mukdowney or anyone else as a vehicle for publishing their original research. At no point in this discussion have you addressed any of the issues wrt to policy, and you seem to have not slightest problem with Uk2censor specifically praising this as supporting the aim of "utter discrediting of the RTE programme". You may not have a problem with such blatant and deliberate misuse of wikipedia for propaganda purposes, but I do; now, if you think I'm wrong, please address policy and guidelines rather than yet another dose of vitriol at me. As one example, rather than accusing me of "high handedness of a breath taking quality", please explain in what sense Heaney's book meet WP:V#Reliable_sources? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Reply. It astonishes me BHG, that you cannot see that your attacks on Muldowney constitutes one large personal attack - sauce for goose and gander I am afraid. You argue incessantly against his efforts to the point of absurdity - your reference above to removing what you construe as an 'unreliable source' is high handedness of a breath taking quality. You are a one girl band. I have checked today: Muldowney was writing on this subject long before there was a television programme or any mention of one. The point is that you and he have a different point of view, but you are masking yours through acts of procedural superiority, sarcasm and editorial obsession. Why not just accept it, and attempt a rapprochement with the good Doctor. I'm sure you can work it out. Please do, for all our sakes. I take it that the campaign of censorship is now over, as you have been editing the offending page?? Please say yes. Nomath (talk) 16:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Reply. Wow, yet another single-purpose account pitching in here. Ukobserver is not a new editor, so he/she is probably unaware of wikipedia policies, which is why every one of the arguments made by Ukobserver directly opposes wikipedia policies.
- The Muldowney carnival has finally rolled into Wiki-town convinced that they can hijack what might be the last credible place for them to rewrite the story as they see it. They've done it in less credible places like indymedia, censoring comments that differed from theirs (the freedom of the internet). Muldowney/Aubane/IPR/Indymedia were laughed off the stage by the Irish media; they feel a bit sore, because their complaints were rejected by the Broadcasting Complaints Committee and recently have got a right kick in the groin (or is it genitals? Does it matter?) because the programme they had a complete hissy fit about has just picked up an international award. Any version of the story of the Pearsons that includes contributions from any of the above should carry a severe health warning. Feint (talk) 21:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yet more pedantry from BHG. One cannot claim truth without providing verifiability. BHG is setting absurdly high standards of verifiability. Apparently RTE is much less demanding. The authors of this entry are not trying to censor anyone. The truth, supported by reliable evidence, is not a point of view. Or perhaps BHG you are some kind of postmodernist who does not believe that there is such a thing as truth, only whatever kind of plausible story you try to concoct? Do you, for example, believe that it is ok to interview the dead as one prominent historian of modern Ireland has done? Or distort what an informant says because you think he was mistaken?
It is proper to ask for as much of a degree of verifiability as the subject demands. If we met the standard that you are trying to maintain for this entry, there would not be much history - we certainly wouldn't be publishing some of the much celebrated heroes of modern Irish history whose standards fall so far below those of Pat Muldowney one wonders if they are historians rather than fantasists. I cannot see the slightest reason why this entry should be removed other than your desire to suppress knowledge of what actually happened at Coolacrease. If informing people of the facts of the matter is not one of the jobs of an encyclopaedia, I don't know what is.**** —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukobserver (talk • contribs) 09:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein (talk) 07:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Relisting note: I think we need more discussion by uninvolved, established editors about this. Sandstein (talk) 07:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Leaning to keep, but overall the article needs a lot of help. I think I'm uninvolved. I certainly think the article could be improved in any number of ways, but I don't think deletion is the answer here. The incident has been made somewhat notable by the TV show, but other sources do seem to exist. That being said, the article is far from perfect, and it could require a lot of work to cut out the OR from the appropriate information. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Wow, "This page is 40 kilobytes long." If you want new reviewers to be uninvolved, maybe it would be better to close this AfD and start from scratch. Far as I can tell, article has plenty sources. As for reliability, history ain't perfect. A lot of ugly things could be erased if "unreliable" witnesses were dismissed! Nom appears to be fighting a scholastic battle against clear notability. That will probably not succeed here at WP where reality occasionally takes a back seat. So why not spend the same energy explaining the poor historical foundations to the readers, rather than to us? Surely people will come here after seeing the TV special, expecting WP to be more NPOV than RTE, and they should get your input too. Potatoswatter (talk) 12:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Reply Potatoswatter, please take another look at the article. The list looks impressive, because it includes lots of references to trivial points (in sources which are highly unlikely to menton these killings at all). When it comes to the core of the story, the only source which comes anywhere close to being a reliable secondary sources is the articles in the local paper by Philip McConway, who is a postgraduate student[46]. An article by a postgrad in a low-circulation local newspaper is not the sort of peer-reviewed publication that fits the best standard of reliable source, per WP:V.
Beyond that, we have lots of primary sources (irrelevant to notability), and two books by involved parties; that hardly amounts to notability per WP:NOTE.
As to your suggestion that I should be "explaining the poor historical foundations to the readers" ... are you serious? You appear to be asking me to write a WP:ESSAY of original commentary, in flagrant breach of WP:NOR. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)- WP has lots of articles on things that aren't true. If you believe it to be an urban legend, then you should say why it is. Legends often lie in the grey area of unverifiability, yet popular belief or mere repetition leads to WP:N. As for whether pointing out the lack of sources constitutes OR, since nobody else in the literature has pointed out the lack of sources, well in that case you've done actual research right here. How does using OR as a bludgeon to delete an article trump putting same OR in the article? Potatoswatter (talk) 07:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Reply. I am not saying that nothing happened there, just that there are inadequate reliable sources to support an article. The rest of your comment is bizarre; if pointing out a lack of reliable secondary sources was itself original research, then WP:V would be a meaningless policy. Please read WP:V#Burden_of_evidence, which clearly says that it is the responsibility of editors adding material to demonstrate that it is properly sourced. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- WP has lots of articles on things that aren't true. If you believe it to be an urban legend, then you should say why it is. Legends often lie in the grey area of unverifiability, yet popular belief or mere repetition leads to WP:N. As for whether pointing out the lack of sources constitutes OR, since nobody else in the literature has pointed out the lack of sources, well in that case you've done actual research right here. How does using OR as a bludgeon to delete an article trump putting same OR in the article? Potatoswatter (talk) 07:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Reply Potatoswatter, please take another look at the article. The list looks impressive, because it includes lots of references to trivial points (in sources which are highly unlikely to menton these killings at all). When it comes to the core of the story, the only source which comes anywhere close to being a reliable secondary sources is the articles in the local paper by Philip McConway, who is a postgraduate student[46]. An article by a postgrad in a low-circulation local newspaper is not the sort of peer-reviewed publication that fits the best standard of reliable source, per WP:V.
- Keep because it belongs to an encyclopedia, but from what I've read it needs an enormous overhaul. Unfortunately it is one of those articles which has to include different views and sources, and is a good example of how our history gets mangled by everyone.Red Hurley (talk) 18:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Any article attracting this many socks and anons gives me a very strong presumption of non-notability. Stifle (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- "Presumption"? Are you applying WP:AUTO to an entire nation? Potatoswatter (talk) 00:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- 'Keep remove any content tht is not adhering to NPOV. BigDuncTalk 12:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- And no matter that it lack reliable secondary sources? :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:48, 15 May 2008 (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.
(