The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The topic in general might be notable as defined by WP:N, but this is in no way an acceptable encyclopedic article as it (fundamentally) violates such basic content policies and guidelines as WP:OR. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse of antisemitic accusations

[edit]
Misuse of antisemitic accusations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a fascinating essay and I've already taken the liberty of saving a copy (with the history) for future reference. It makes a lot of very valid points. However, it is ultimately an essay. And the topic by nature cannot help be both original research and an essay. Almost everyone who is accused of antisemitism denies the accusations. Deciding which are valid and which are not is fraught with difficulty. Useful analogies would occur to the hypothetical articles on similar topics such as Misuse of accusations of homopobia and the like. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not get into the messy (and impossible to resolve) question of "Is a certain accusation of antisemitism true or not". That is an impossible question to answer in many cases. Instead, this article focuses on the signficant issues raised in the two books, namely: Is there a _pattern_ of overuse of the accusation with the goal of stifling debate? That is notable, topical, and has many articles and books to support the discussion (regardless of whether or not one thinks there is such a pattern). --Noleander (talk) 21:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
David Duke doesn't get included as someone who denies being an anti-Semite. Why not? The decision to take some accusations seriously and others to take as reasonable examples where accusations of anti-semitism may be inaccurate is inherently POV and OR. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not include David Duke or others, because it only includes persons who claim that accusations were intended to stifle criticism. If you examine the article closely: every person/organization is saying "Not only is this accusation false, but the intention (or consequence) is to censor legitimate criticism". That is the point of the two books this article is summarizing. --Noleander (talk) 01:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh really? I just googled for "David Duke" + anti-semitism and the first hit I got was this where Duke makes precisely that claim. So, should he go in? JoshuaZ (talk) 01:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of David Duke he really was in the KKK, so as far as I know he never denied having been anti-semitic at least at some point in his life. He may deny currently being antisemitic. The point is you can never know if someone is lying and if the accusation is true or not, or if the denial is true or not. Mel Gibson, yes has made anti-semitic comments, that is verifiable, is he antisemitic in general though? He says no, the comments were "accidents" and he was drunk. Well, whats the truth? Plus the entire topic of this article is synth, and any outside source you find that tried to put it together on its own is going to have a serious reliability issue and would never get by RS/N as acceptable "peer reviewed" or reliably published material to use in a Wikipedia article. I also would like to question Noleander's fascination with articles that put Jews in a bad light and that inherently, by topic and by name, have a POV against Jews. It seems the only articles he works on are about Mormons and Jews, and his treatment of Mormons is much fairer and on a variety of neutral points. Could Noleander please elaborate as to why his work on these subjects?Camelbinky (talk) 01:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure: But first, I'd have to say that the article - like any article - needs to be judged on its merits, regardless of the motivation of the editors that created it. Anyway, I'll answer your question: I have no strong feelings about LDS or Israel or Scientology or Islam. My motiviation is simply that I've noticed that the encyclopedia tends to be missing lots of critical (in the sense of "negative") information. The editing trend is very clearly that certain topics are "owned" by a group of active editors, and they numerically dominate any discussion. Efforts to introduce valid critical (negative) information into LDS articles or Zionism/Israel articles is met with very stiff resistance. As a consequence: The encyclopedia tends to be too, um, politically correct? Censored? Lacking balance? From a Palestinian's veiwpoint, Wikipedia is a "fucking joke" to quote Steven J. Anderson from farther down in this discussion. The lack of balance in Jewish/Israel related articles is astounding. I have no special interest in Palestine or Israel, but I do have an interest in attempting to bring balance to the encyclopedia. I cant imagine how many muslim editors have given up on trying to contribute to this encyclopedia. --Noleander (talk) 04:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not hide behind Palestinian rights. Also, please get your own story right - first you tell us that the intentions of the author of the article (you) are irrelevant, and then you tell us that your intention is to make WP less of a fucking joke. Look, either is a plausible position, but you can't have it both ways - either your intentions don't matter, or they do, just stick to one. Now, if you want to write an article on racism against Arabs or Muslims in the US or generally, go ahead. I am sure it is possible to write a good articl on this without stooping to anti-semitic remarks or insinuations. I have problems with articles relating to the Israeli occupation the West Bank, but in my view the problem is that WP editors do not go to libraries and read the scholarly books by historians and political scientists on the ways the occupation took shape. There are scholarly books by Jews that are in fact quite critical of Israeli policy, and of the occupation, period. But since most editors do not know how to, or do not want to, do library research, they just surf the internet for quotes, and for a variety of reasons we should all understand all that is left of NPOV after this form of research are quotes from two sides each calling the other side wrong. This is indeed a problem and the worst of this crap rightly gets deleted. But the sollution is to read the considerable scholarly research on the occupation, and write about it. The solution is not to attack Jews. I really believe that one can write an NPOV article on the current situation of Palestinians and how they ended up there, drawing on scholarly sources, and I do not see how this article brings us one step closer to that, so please, spare us the pieties. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You give some good examples there, but I would disagree for two reasons:
1) the other examples you cite DO NOT have two widely read, notable books that cover those topics. This article does, so this article is much more notable than those other examples you cite.
2) You ask "when will it end"? This encyclopedia is intended to grow and grow, and gradually acquire more details as the years go by and editors do more and deeper research. Articles will get subarticles, and those in turn will get sub-subarticles. There are many hundreds of articles on Antisemitism and singling this one out for deletion smacks of censorship.
--Noleander (talk) 21:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those books are not primarily "about" the misuse of antisemitic accusations. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are two notable books on the subject The Politics of Anti-Semitism edited by Alexander Cockburn and Beyond Chutzpah by Norman Finkelstein. So clearly the topic is notable.
  • This topic has been discussed, in writing, by many, many notable people including Ralph Nader and Noam Chomsky.
  • This topic is a subject of noteworthy on-going discussions by Jewish groups such as Jews for Justice for Palestinians and Jewish Voice for Peace.
  • There are approximately 400 articles on antisemitism (see Category:Antisemitism) and virtually none of them are critical of the alleged overuse of accusations of antisemitism. One article to present some balance against 400 brings some balance to the topic.
  • The topic of the article is noteworthy, topical, and of interest to many people, including Palestinians.
  • Including this neutral, informative article improves the quality of the encyclopedia, and provides information that would otherwise be missing, or not readily accessible to users and readers.
  • One of the key points of the article (and the 2 notable books) is that there is a pattern of overuse of the accusation. The existing two articles on the notable books are just two instances: a new article is needed to comprehensively survey the range of claims of alleged overuse of the accusation.
--Noleander (talk) 20:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You beat me to the "oh the irony" comment :-) The fact that I was accused of antisemitism for presenting an article that was _about_ the use of accusations of antisemitism to censor criticism of Israel, is ironic indeed. --Noleander (talk) 05:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't ironic at all. You should look that word up. Moreover you're doing precisely what all bigots do when their odious activities are uncovered, you're shrieking censorship. It's more than clear that you're using these articles to push a vile, anti-semitic POV here at Wikipedia. Crafty (talk) 05:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um, guys? A bit of civility please? JoshuaZ (talk) 05:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's keep it civil. No need to resort to name-calling. I would point out that many of the people/organizations that claim that accusations of antisemitism are over-used include are, I believe, Jewish, including Chomsky, the Jewish organizations listed in the article, Finkelstein, and William Robinson. If you'll notice: the article is presenting the statements of notable people in their own words. Because this was a controversial topic, I was careful to ensure that the editor's voice was not presented in the article. --Noleander (talk) 05:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Double Standard at work. Yes, but that is a double-standard. The encyclopedia's job is to present information: If 40 notable people think that accusations are made to effect censorship, the encyclopedia should capture that information and present it. It is not an editors job to decide if Noam Chomsky is sincere ot not. There is a double standard at play here: In an article on Antisemitism: if 40 examples of offensive comments are captured in an article, we dont ask "Why _those_ 40?" or "Were those targets _really_ offended"? No: the encyclopedia captures the notable, documented instances of antisemitism and presents them. It is a double standard to suggest that a list of people like Finkelstein, Chomsky, Nader, Tonge, etc must somehow "prove" that their issues/concerns/hurts are .... what is it that you are suggesting they must prove? In any case, it is a double standard, and censorship. --Noleander (talk) 04:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: How is this article different from the article Israel and the apartheid analogy? Both deal with a controversial political issue that has been raised in books and articles. Both articles are basically a list of _examples_ of notable people making a political point. The Israel and the apartheid analogy article is a long list of people, books, and articles that say "The situation in Israel bears some resemblance to Aparthied". This article is a list of people, books, and articles that say "The antisemitism accusation is used to stifle legitimate criticism of Israel or Zionism". What is the distinction? My point is: This is an encyclopedia, and it should be capturing key topics of note, even if they are uncomfortable or controversial. Censorship is not healthy. --Noleander (talk) 04:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being familiar with the many discussions over how to deal with that article, I'd say the primary difference has only to do with where the material is best placed. A whole list of options with that article were considered, but couldn't garner consensus. Human Rights in Israel, for instance; I don't think either side of the debate considered that especially desirable. The debate went on for years all the same. Here it would seem there are plenty of more balanced ways to approach this material, and thus no real need to separate it into its own article. Mackan79 (talk) 04:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the background. Can you give a couple of examples of "more balanced ways" to approach this material? --Noleander (talk) 05:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested "contemporary debates about antisemitism" above, which presumably would start at Antisemitism before being branched into other articles. That may be a place to start a discussion. See also Timeshifter's comment above about merging into various other articles. Mackan79 (talk) 06:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would ask that commentors be a little more rigorous and precise in their comments. Simply saying "OR, POV, SYNTH" is no different than saying "I dont like it". Every article is a synthesis of something. For example, take a look at Antisemitism #Middle East. That section is very, very poor. A non-notable list of events, without any notable cite that even claims they are antisemitic. Yet, are any of the above editors cleaning up that section? Bear in mind that is the top level article of a Category that contains 400 articles! That section, of course, is negative towards muslims, and has stood un-edited, un-challenged for who knows how long, so it gives the appearance - to me, at least - of a double standard. --Noleander (talk) 04:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are correct when you say that "There appear to be few if any reliable sources characterizing the various examples cited as "misuse of antisemitic accusations" ". The reason is the following: The sources characterize the issue as "many accusations of antisemitism are false, and are targeted simply to stifle negative commentary". I originally entitled the article something along those lines, as "Controversies related to false accusations of antisemitism". But then I figured that was rather provocative, and thought I would try to tone down the title to a more sedate phrase, and I picked "Misuse of antisemitism accusations". You are correct that none of the sources use the word "misuse", but it is unfair to use that as a reason to delete the entire article, when the more accurate title would have been even more provocative. I concur the title could be improved to more accurately reflect the sources in the article. --Noleander (talk) 07:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See Quote mining. It is precisely to avoid POV opinion pieces that Wikipedia requires articles to be based on reliable sources. A well known person may say something, but later explain that their words suggested a meaning they did not intend. An independent analysis is required to determine whether the person has a history of that kind of view (did they really mean it, or was it just a mixup?). Sorry, but you cannot write articles on Wikipedia based on your own collection of data. Johnuniq (talk) 10:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct: Quote mining is not acceptable. However, I dont think this article suffers from that defect. The sources in this article are all notable, and their comments fall into two classes: (1) "I offered a legitimate criticism Israel or Zionism, and I was subsequently labelled antisemitic, in an attempt to silence me"; and (2) "There is a pattern of the overuse of the term antisemitism, whereby the term is loosely applied in a systematic effort to silence critics of Israel or Zionism". As I look at the article now, I see that the sources are all jumbled, and there is no distinction between the two distinct points. The question facing us, as editors, is: "Is this topic of censorship relating to antisemitism accusations notable?". My opinion is, Yes, it is notable. My main reasons for noteworthiness are:
  • Two books cover this topic (see above)
  • Notable people discuss it, including a Nobel Laureate (Desmond Tutu) and a member of Parliament (Jenny Tonge)
  • The topic not yet addressed in the Category:Antisemitism category, which includes 400 articles on the topic if antisemitism, yet none of them mention this particular topic.
--Noleander (talk) 19:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break 1

[edit]
Untwirl: Your point about Self-hating Jew is an important one. Two of the sources cited in this article, Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein were both given that label by their critics. I suppose that topic could be more clearly explained in the article as in "Some notable people say that the accusation of antisemitism is levied in order to silence otherwise legitimate critism of Israel or Zionism. If the recipient of the accusation is Jewish, the accusation sometimes includes the additional charge that the recipient is a Self-hating Jew. Some commentators point out that both charges sometimes have chilling effect on discussion about Israel or Zionism. --Noleander (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No one ever accused Noleander of being an anti-Semite Slrubenstein | Talk 13:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This Diff shows the original title of the the WP:ANI thread was "Is user:Noleander an anti-Semite?" Later changed at this diff. Asking a question on this topic is just as good as making an accusation. The text of the renamed ANI is here now. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh really? If people ask if I m a racist, and others answer, no, she is not a racist, that means i am not a racist, right? How else does one ask a question? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is along the lines of publicly asking someone if they beat their wife. It is one thing for people to discuss the public angles of "liberal media" or "vast rightwing conspiracy". But public accusatory questions at the personal level are considered a form of attack in the real world. If you did it on your job you might be fired. You would bring that up privately to your boss. Is so-and-so a racist or bigot, and is it effecting how he treats his coworkers. At the public level it is along the lines of people asking "Is Hollywood controlled by Jews?". The question itself is problematic. It is one of those type of Fox News type set-piece "debates." Any public accusations or discussion of personal or organizational antisemitism or Jewish control or Christian Zionism or George Bush's Gog and Magog comments (see Gog and Magog#Gog and Magog and President George W. Bush), etc. ... all of it is fraught with spin. They all deserve WP:NPOV Wikipedia coverage. At least in the form of covering the history. It will be very difficult to cover some of it in a neutral manner though without spin and adding to the flames, but it needs to be done. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your thinking is pretty sloppy - the joke is not about "Do you beat your wife." If someone asked m I beat my wie, the answer would be "no," case closed. The joke is trying to make a serious point which you seem to miss entirely, and which has nothing to do with these kinds of legitimate questions. And my question was in no way analogous to asking if Hollywood is controled by Jews, which is why there is nothing rong with my qustion. However, the artiucle under question is alanogous to asking whether Hollywood is controlled by Jews And you are right, that this is a very unconstructive way to phrase a question, and that is exactly why you must agree that this article should bedeleted. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You missed the points I was making. Number one; I wasn't making a joke. Number two; asking these kinds of questions publicly can be perceived as an assumption, an accusation, a smear, a stain, and a setup. Covering this issue in Wikipedia is important, as it is a notable topic with a long history. See CarolMooreDC links. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You were referring to a very old and well-known joke (about beating one's wife), but missing the point of the joke. Secondly, your point is rubbish: a question is a question, a statement is a statement, and we learn these things when we are very young. A question asked in public is a question that can be answered in public. You say "covering this issue" and I agree, anti-Semitism is covered by two articles already. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it was missing the point of the joke so much as not needing it. CarolMooreDC's point (and now also Timeshifter's point) was clearly that antisemitism, like domestic violence, is considered such a strong accusation that the normal way to treat it is 1) keep your suspicion quiet until you have convinced yourself that the accusation is true with at least 90% certainty, then 2) start mentioning in public that you have a suspicion, and say precisely why.
The well-known joke is completely irrelevant for this, although I note that it would work just as well with "When did you learn to get your antisemitic feelings under control?" This is not the way you put it, but part of the reason the joke is so funny is that even just asking "Do you beat your wife?" / "Are you an antisemite?" is offensive unless you have a very good objective reason to ask. Hans Adler 12:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quite. The "are you still beating your wife?" joke is both funny and makes a sharp point, because whether the question is answered yes or no, the answer is an admission of guilt. The question, "Is x an anti-Semite" can be answered "no" with no admission of guilt, indeed, the answer "no" is (unlike in the joke) a negation of guilt. I asked the question because I saw one editor create two articles, one of which belitles accusations of anti-Semitism, the other of which showcased and continues to chowcase anti-Semitic canards without any encyclopedic content e.g. analysis of what these examples of anti-Semitism reveal about anti-Semites or anti-Semitism or the epoch in which they were (are?) popular. They are both gratuitously offensive. Since that time another editor made a number of cuts, some of which turned attention away from anti-Seitism to other issues in Jewish-American history - this is material I would not consider offensive, but which no longer fits with the article title or the article. I would be just as offended by an article called "misuse of homophobic accusations" or "misuse of racist accusations" or "misuse of anti-black accusations." At the AN/I I provided my reasons and invited people to respond; there was nothing coy about my question. I believe that Wikipedia should have no tolerance for racism. I think Hans Adler's point abo9ut spousal abuse is dead wrong. As to my question: If the answer to my question is "no," there is no harm done as the articles will simply remain. If the answer to my question is "yes," we need to act, and act quickly, to delete articles and to watch the edits of this editor. How many people turn to Wikipedia each day for information? Where in google searches do Wikipedia articles come up? A lot, and high up. Wikipedia should not be a purveyor of racist material. The harm that this does far outways the possible harm of the question. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think my point about spousal abuse is technically wrong, but after looking a little bit closer I am not sure how relevant it is. It seems that you had more convincing arguments for your suspicion than those I was aware of. E.g. I was not aware of the existence of the Jews and Hollywood article. Presumably I would have to spend more time on this than I can right now to form an opinion. Hans Adler 13:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your thoughtful reply. Wikipedia offers perhaps endless opportunities for people in good faith to disagree. I just wanted Timeshifter to acknowledge that my concerns were serious and expressed in good faith. His casual remarks left me in doubt. Your's do not, and I appreciate it. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carol is mistaken. It wasn't this thread that was originally titled "Is Noleander an anti-Semite?", but an ANI thread initiated by Slrubenstein, in which s/he writes that another article by Noleander "seems to be a thinly disguised pretext to bring out the anti-Semitic slur of Jews controlling the media... what kind of person would even think to create such an article? I view it as an attack against me." So it certainly looks as though Slrubenstein is accusing Noleander of antisemitism, and her/his comments above are at best disingenuous. RolandR 19:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that some of Noleander's work is a direct copyvio of material located at Stormfront. Specifically, in this, the writing starting "The article then describes" through "prominence of the Jewish role" is apparently lifted (copyvio!) from [http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=98084&page=2 this forum post (WARNING HIGHLY OFFENSIVE)] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipocrite (talk • contribs) 13:53, 22 October 2009
Sigh. No, the source of the Michael Medved quote was RadioIslam, here. I apologize for cutting-and-pasting that text without proof-reading. I dont trust Stormfront, I dont like Stormfront (Im a liberal environmentalist, for crying out loud). Let's focus on the quality of the encyclopedia rather than the personalities or motivations of editors, shall we? --Noleander (talk) 16:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only person loudly commenting about your anti-semitism or lack thereof is you. If you don't want people to think you are an anti-semite, perhaps taking articles that are the bottom-scum of the shitbucket are copyvioing them into your brand new articles is an error. Hipocrite (talk) 16:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Radio Islam article is itself blatantly anti-Semitic. Further the fact that one of your new articles was plagiarised means that there is a strong possibility that this article too is a copyvio and shoudl be deleted as a precautionary measure.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was no copyright violation in the other article, but even if there were, why would that impact this article? Again, the issue here is censorship: Censorship of people like Ralph Nader, and even censorship here in Wikipedia. The value of this article needs to be judged on its own merits. From my point of view: it looks like the "Deleter"s do not have a strong argument for deleting this article, so they are now resorting to a possible, minor copyright violation in another article, as an argument for deleting this article. Lets focus on this article in this AfD. --Noleander (talk) 17:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever. Still copyvio. Source article still anti-Semitic. This point now taken to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Noleander —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter cohen (talk • contribs) 17:27, 22 October 2009
(unindent somewhat). Slrubenstein. Accusations of antisemitism are a serious matter. You continue to say that it was OK to title your ANI thread "Is user:Noleander an anti-Semite?" People with years of Wikipedia experience disagree with you. That is why the thread title was changed to user:Noleander and antisemitism-related articles. Here are some relevant quotes:
Slrubenstein and Camelbinky, if you believe the article(s) written by Noleander are problematic, take them to AfD, please, and not to ANI. Asking these sorts of loaded questions on ANI, and thereby accusing another editor of racism - a very serious allegation where I live - is a violation of good faith and our policy against personal attacks, and I strongly advise you not to do it again unless you have many and very persuasive diffs to back it up. (This comment is, of course, not an endorsement or defense of any actual anti-semitic disruption that may have been going on.)  Sandstein  06:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still have an open mind on whether the article itself should be deleted or massively rewrittten. But this thread seems a textbook case of the phenomenon being discussed. Of course it is possible to suggest that such accusations are misused without oneself being an antisemite. RolandR 07:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I share Slrubenstein's concern, although I have toned down the thread title[1] as being needlessly accusatory. ... [snip] ... - Wikidemon (talk) 18:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[End of quotes from ANI thread]
Others have apologized to Noleander on his talk page. See User talk:Noleander. I looked at the Afd articles in question, the deletion discussions, and Noleander's past history. He does not seem like an antiSemite to me. I looked at the titles of his user contributions going back a couple thousand edits. He helps edit many articles on various religions. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy This is an essay, not a wikipedia entry. But it is a pretty darn good essay. Simonm223 (talk) 20:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and also, I think everyone here who wants to keep the article is willing to change the title wording, so, Bali, an objection based primarily on that does not quite seem reasonable to me. DGG ( talk ) 00:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
More