Purge server cache
- 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. This boils down to deciding if 1 newspaper article can confer notability, and in this case the argument that it does not is the stronger. Kevin (talk) 05:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)  | 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 a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. 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 by suspected single-purpose accounts may be tagged using: {{subst:spa|username}} | - Eric Zaccar (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: "Eric Zaccar" — search, news, books, scholar, images )
A minor local playwright and musician. I don't believe this person meets the requirements of WP:BIO (and specifically WP:AUTHOR and WP:MUSIC). There are no reliable sources about the subject, and I can find very little about him. Even taking the unsourced article, all it asserts is that he's written some plays which have been performed by local groups; there's no indication any of these performances are notable, that the plays were reviewed by anyone, and certainly nothing like WP:AUTHOR's criterion that he is in any way an "important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors." The only coverage at all I can find about him is a single NY Times local-section mention of his play (here) which has little detail about him, and some mentions of a jury trial of which he was foreman (here). His musical and photographic efforts appear to be of similarly marginal significance. So I don't believe he's anything other than a very minor local figure with no general relevance, influence, or importance, and so that it's inappropriate that Wikipedia have an article devoted to him. Finlay McWalter • Talk 21:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC) - Qualifying what I said above, the Ken Starr play has been reviewed, but only in very very minor local publications and then only to a very small degree. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 22:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- Some users may dispute the validity of these !votes, as they are made by anonymous and/or newly registered users and therefore may be sockpuppet !votes. See Wikipedia:Sock puppet.
- Delete – I was going to stick a {{PROD}} on this piece of vanispamcruftisement after putting some lipstick on it, but this works, too … there may be beau coup "references", but they don't amount to "significant coverage" as defined by WP:N. — 141.156.161.245 (talk) 19:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep The New York Post, the New York Times, and New York Newsday can hardly be called " very very minor local publications" as the user below has suggested. Eric Zaccar's work has been written about in all of those publications, and discussed at length on national major market radio programs, like Howard Stern, Joe Franklin and Joey Reynolds. Eric is listed as a prominant playwright and lyricist in Joseph Papp's Public Theater archives, and Mr. Papp was widely considered to be the most renowned theater producer of the latter half of the twentieth century. By all projections, Mr. Zaccar's upcoming feature film, WITHOUT HATE, is going to be a serious contender in the market. His plays have been produced all around New York City, and his last screenplay, ON THE OTHER SIDE, was produced as a feature film and distributed internationally. Though the user below seems to a gifted artist and photographer, he does not seem to be in New York, or the United States. I'm not sure exactly how he is receiving his information about an American writer, or why he seems to be on a personal vendetta against someone that he does not know, and knows little about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreamdesignernow (talk • contribs) 21:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC) Dreamdesignernow put this comment at the top of the page (so "the user below" means the nomination); I've moved it down to its place in the contemporaneous stream of comments -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 21:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- There isn't a shred of evidence for most of what you say in the article. The Post and Newsday mentions are tiny scraps on minor pages. The NY times story discusses the play, not Zaccar, and is in the local pages. The local pages of the times are like the local pages of any other US newspaper, and are no more evidence of notability than the same 3 column inches would be in the Sheboygan Press or the Duluth Tribune. None of these amounts to even a tiny review of a single play; one can hardly claim to be a noted playwright when no noted theatre critic has reviewed your play. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 21:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Unless I am missing something, the only thing I can find on Google is Zaccar's comments following jury duty. I don't see anything about being a famous playwright. Warrah (talk) 02:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Google again, Warrah. Of the thousand plus articles and pages that come up about Eric Zaccar, less than ten per cent of them deal with said jury trial. Of course, all of that should be changing soon. The buzz in the business is, Eric's new screenplay, Without Hate, based on the afore mentioned case, is in pre-production and should be a major motion picture, within the year. I've been around the New York theater and independent film scene for quite a while, and I can tell you that Eric is rather well known, and well regarded. If I have to vote, I'm obviously going to say keep the article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robroams (talk • contribs) 04:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Note that Robroams has no other contributions -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 09:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
-
- It's not alleged. Eric's play, Starr's on Broadway, was plugged in the New York Post by Cindy Addams, a nationally renowned columnist, and Liz Smith, whose column was also syndicated to Newsday and many other papers. Look in the press clips section of starrplay.com or call the papers for verification, since you seem to have a lot of time to put into this. If Eric Zaccar is such an insignificant writer, why would they even mention him (and why are so many people spending so much time on this site, arguing about him)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robroams (talk • contribs) 15:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep I'm part of the team that's producing the film, Without Hate, and I can tell you that the screenplay didn't come cheap. It's a truly brilliant piece of work that had twenty five actors, producers and industry people in the room stunned, at the first table reading. Eric was well known around New York for a long time, but his national, and dare I say international recognition are moments away.
- The article should remain. If I was going to question anything it would be why a photographer and computer programmer, who doesn't seem to live on the same side of the world as Eric, is so obsessed with slandering a writer that he doesn't know, and doesn't know anything about. Actually, the photographer doesn't seem to live anywhere, or at least not anywhere that's apparent on his long, rambling web pages or many fragmented E-Mail addresses.
- We still need Eric around for last minute rewrites, and I'd hate to think that we have to increase our budget to include bodyguards to protect him from a possible stalker. — Ariellamarie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 15:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC) (UTC).
-
- Why is it necessary for me to have commented about other articles? This is a subject that I care about, that I'm WELL INFORMED about, and that has a DIRECT IMPACT ON MY BUSINESS and my life. Again, one must question why this writer, that you don't know and that you call insignificant, has driven you to such a vengeful, venomous, arguably libelous attack. Then again, to prove liability, it would probably be necessary to find a mailing address, or even a valid E-Mail address to serve court papers to, somewhere on your many long, rambling web pages.
-
- Again, I say keep the article! Get rid of the nasty comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ariellamarie (talk • contribs) 18:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete There's a lot of water between me and the subject of this article, but that doesn't mean I hate him or am disqualified from commenting. The comments above about 'other articles' are because we get a lot of people suddenly making a lot of noise about one particular subject, which they appear to be connected to, and then disappearing again. They mostly seem to think this is a voting situation. It isn't. The bold type Delete or Keep is just a marker, and should only be used once per account. Other remarks are 'Comments'. You are 'well informed' about this matter. Can you give some evidence of the notability of the subject - in terms of reliable third party sources? Please note that the new screenplay falls foul of one of our policies in terms of notability as it hasn't yet come out. If it were going to be a film by Spielberg, and there was good reliable evidence of this, yes - good case for notability. By a company that returns only 5 Google hits, 2 of which are their own site, I'm afraid not. As to the subject here, I can get a lot of ghits. The first 10 pages return nothing that I would consider up to our requirements. If you can provide what I couldn't find, please do. As to slander, there is none as this is written. Libel? I've looked carefully and can't see any either. I am not a lawyer, but I would imagine many would be happy to give professional opinions. A lot of the editors here would prefer to see an article saved rather than deleted. (If for no better reason than to avoid Egg on Face Syndrome...) But the article must fit our requirements. In my opinion, this one doesn't. If it can be saved, all to the good. Over to you - you know him. I only know what I see here and Google. Peridon (talk) 20:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
-
- Your points are logical, if not necessarily accurate, but what I find detrimental and borderline libelous is this: My small, relatively new company has quite a lot riding on our upcoming feature film, Without Hate. However, while we're out, working 24-7 to secure the rest of our financing, attract the interest of talent, lock up distribution, tend to a thousand other details, and overcome the many other ordinary and expected obstacles that are inevitable when producing any feature film, we now have to deal with the fact that, when someone googles our writer, they see articles calling him “unimportant” “very minor” and “marginal.”
-
- Besides the quality of Eric's work, it's his solid reputation that we were counting on when we purchased his script. Unfortunately, investors don't simply finance a film because they like the screenplay or story. Among many other things, they generally want to know who the writer is. As you yourself stated, google is considered a reliable way to check someone out. And as I'm sure you know well, Wikipedia pages are generally among the first to come up, when someone with an article is googled. In plainer English, the words of the person who introduced this dispute can turn out to be extremely costly and extremely damaging.
-
- Another point that I feel compelled to make here is that, while Eric Zaccar is a rather versatile and complex talent, he has assured me that he's not now, nor has he ever been or claimed to be a musician, of any type. No articles, in Wikipedia, or anywhere else on or off the internet, state or insinuate that Eric has ever played any kind of musical instrument. Since the afore mentioned dispute instigator seems to be making the character destruction of a total stranger into his personal mission in life, it would be nice if at least SOME of his most basic information was accurate.
-
- Maybe there are a fair amount of writers, actors, directors, artists, and musicians out there with more google-able credits than Eric Zaccar, and maybe some of them aren't mentioned in wikipedia. My suggestion is, rather than have bugs scouring the internet for articles to remove, why not use the same time and energy to scout for real talent, and find others, like Eric, who are worthy of your recognition? It is, after all, an encyclopedia of the people, isn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ariellamarie (talk • contribs) 13:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment – There are no "bugs scouring the internet for articles to remove" … editors simply monitor Special:NewPages here on Wikipedia for articles that are not worthy of inclusion based on established policies and guidelines … what part of Wikipedia:Notability do you not understand? As for your financial backers, they do not find "articles calling him “unimportant” “very minor” and “marginal.”" … instead they find a single article with nothing but links to the subject's own website, www.starrplay.com … this discussion was started because the subject of the article has not "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" … by your own admission, this article contains false information about the subject ("he's not now, nor has he ever been or claimed to be a musician, of any type") which is much more likely to be grounds for litigation than alleged damage to his reputation in this forum, so either the information or the article (I say both) should be removed. — 141.156.161.245 (talk) 15:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I just re-read Eric Zaccar's wikipedia page, and I didn't find one word that said or implied that he was a musician, of any kind. It said that he was a lyricist, and newspaper coverage, as well as Youtube videos of songs that he wrote, will confirm that. It says that he has worked with and produced recordings for musicians. As one of thousands of examples, George Martin, the world renowned music producer, worked with and produced The Beatles. To the best of my knowledge, he's never been a musician himself. The art of lyric writing involves scrolling down words. Producing is a vague term that could involve hands on work, financing, coordinating or many other aspects of a production. I agree with Arriellemarie. If people are going to criticize someone that they don't know and don't know anything about, they should at least learn to read a simple short article and get their facts straight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robroams (talk • contribs) 16:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep I'm up near Philadelphia, these days, and I don't get to New York City that often. However, I did make special trips for at least three of Eric Zaccar's plays. I've been a fan of this great writer, ever since his college productions, when I did live in New York. I loved "On the Other Side," and I can't wait for his upcoming movie, "Without Hate."
- There are children dying for lack of food in Africa and other children dying because their insurance companies won't pay for their necessary operations, in the United States. Isn't there something more important to debate than whether or not a hardworking, talented, prolific and versatile writer should have a wikipedia article? And I say he should!! — Philg19 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 00:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC) (UTC).
- Comment Three points to make. First, although the subject of the article may well be talented - I for one haven't said he is or isn't - that is not the question. Wikipedia has rules for inclusion. It has to have, otherwise it would be full of the sort of stuff that sank so many of the old usenet and bulletin board places. We still get loads of 'articles' that say 'Shawn is the most awesommnest everrrrrrrrr!!!!!!' or similar. Obviously, those go almost instantly. It's when you get to the more borderline cases that the trouble starts. You may think the subject of this article deserves an article. OK, prove it. We need far more than the unsupported opinion of a new visitor. Otherwise, come back Shawn, all is forgiven.... Second, while I am not decrying your hard work with your company, Wikipedia is not the place for promotying things (or people). It is an encyclopaedia, not a directory. Sure, a Wikipedia article could be a boost for a new or newish venture. Unfortunately, we'd be inundated with not only every neighbourhood florist's shop, but also the seller of flowers at the roadside in Swampville. Encyclopaedias are for recording what is of note not for discovering what is about to be. As I pointed out, a forthcoming Spielberg production is probably (not definitely, mind) of note - because of Spielberg. We need evidence from independent reliable sources even in his case. Thirdly, as one who writes myself, I do wish success to our subject here, and to the company doing the production. I won't be seeing the results, because I never watch films (other than Harry Potter and things like Ice Age) or plays (except for ones I've written...). I prefer books. I can see what's happening better when reading. Peridon (talk) 16:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
-
- If, as you suggested, being involved in a production or pre-production with Steven Spielberg would be enough to legitimize Eric Zaccar as a wikipedia worthy screenwriter, then being involved in a musical with Joseph Papp should give Eric equal credibility as a playwright and lyricist. While Mr. Spielberg can be considered one of many (or at least a handful of) truly great contemporary directors, Mr. Papp was widely considered to be the single most respected, renowned and important theater producer in the latter half of the twentieth century. If you check the New York Public Library's archives for Joseph Papp, available online and considered a bible in the New York theater world, you'll find Eric Zaccar's name, somewhere between the revered playwright, Christopher Durang, and the great composer, Barry Manilow. Eric is listed as lyricist and bookwriter, which in theater terms means playwright, for a Papp production called THE OEDIPUS COMPLEX. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ariellamarie (talk • contribs) 03:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with Arrielle Maria. Google Eric Zaccar and you get at least a few legitimate references to film, theater, music, radio and television. His work is also credited on the pages of numerous performers. He seems to have an interesting and diverse enough career to warrant some coverage.
- I also agree that, unless Eric's primary detractor, the person who began this whole debate, is an actual wikipedia employee, you have to question why he seems so passionately against someone who I'm assuming is a total stranger. — Oxentertainment (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 21:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC) (UTC).
- Keep I've been going to see Eric Zaccar's plays since he was in NYU Tish Dramatic Writing, I've watched his career progress and I can tell you that, he's a force to be reckoned with. Has society really reached the point where a man is judged by his google-ability? Keep the article!! — Radiating Truth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 21:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC) (UTC).
- Comment – I have started a list of the sock/meatpuppets who have "voted" here … if only they had devoted as much energy to improving the article under discussion. — 141.156.161.245 (talk) 02:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
-
- Perhaps we “sock/meat puppets” (whatever the hell that means) reserve our comments for subjects we know and care about, and don’t sit in our rooms obsessing about people and things that have no effect on our own lives.
-
- Let’s examine Eric Zaccar, once again: He has at least a few checkable credits as a playwright, lyricist and screenwriter. At least one or two of his pieces have been written about in several major New York newspapers. Numerous noted actors on IMDB site his plays, that they appeared in, on their “other works” section. Many references to Kenneth Starr site Eric’s play, about the notorious special prosecutor. And Joseph Papp, one of the greatest theater producers in history, has Eric's name listed in his official archives, as a book and lyric writer for one of his musicals.
-
- Now let’s look at the person who started this debate and who, I’m assuming is now using his IP address to comment, since his name has been brought into question: He has long rambling diatribes, on both wikipedia and his own pages, that go on and on about many arguably pointless subjects, and that disclaim all the spam that others claim to have received from his sites. He seems to have little to do with his time, since he always appears to be right there at his computer, monitoring this page and ready to pounce, every time someone says something favorable to the subject. He has some moderately interesting photographs, that he claims to have taken, on his web pages, but they all seem to be of animals and inanimate objects. It makes you seriously wonder if he’s ever actually had a live, human, in person interaction.
-
- None of his E-Mail addresses seem to be valid, and the whois page for his web domain lists phone numbers, like 555-1212, and conflicting mailing addresses, from England to California. Plus, like Jim Carrey’s psychotically obsessed stalker character in the film, The Cable Guy, even his name seems to be from a vintage television program. Wasn’t Maude married to Walter Finlay?
-
- On top of all of that, his reading comprehension skills leave something to be desired. Again, though not one word in wikipedia, or anywhere else, indicates that the subject of this debate is a musician, this self appointed critic calls him one, in his very first sentence; and a minor one, at that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robroams (talk • contribs) 17:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- I’m sure that this was first suggested as a joke, but the more I read about this man, the more I think that the subject of this debate might want to start examining whether he could be a serious threat. But then, how could legal action be taken against a web phantom who could live anywhere and be anyone?
-
-
- And in all seriousness, why is this person so adamant about a total stranger? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robroams (talk • contribs) 16:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Clarification I said a forthcoming production by Spielerg 'could' be notable. Not that everyone who has worked with him (even the tea lady - vital but not notable) who has worked with him was notable. I don't say that Zaccar isn't notable - just that we are having a lot of heated air and no reliable evidence. We're not judging him by his Googleability. We're not judging him. We're judging this article - and we're judging by the standards of the organisation hosting the article. To use the example of my awesome friend Shawn again, are you willing to put Shawn's awesomeness up on your website for all to bow down to? You may be. (Personally,I don't advise it. Shawn's not so bad - it's his mates...) Get my drift? If you don't like the way Wikipedia works, start your own free access encyclopaedia. Can be done. (Not saying it's easy.) In the mean time, come up with the evidence that we are begging for, or please stop wasting our time with re-iterations of Eric Zaccar's awesomeness that are little better supported than Shawn's. Show that firstly Oedipus was notable, and secondly that Zaccar wrote it. Show us the pig - all we can see is the poke. Peridon (talk) 17:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
-
- As far as I know, it was a while ago, before things like theater programs and reviews were saved on the internet. However, the link below is to as official a record as exists for Joseph Papp's Public Theater and New York Shakespeare Festival, the most noteable theater producer, and theater group, in New York. Everyone from DeNiro to Pacino to Dustin to Meryl proudly display their work with Papp on their resumes.
-
- Search for Eric's name. It's right there between Barry Manilow's and Christopher Durang's. http://www.nypl.org/research/manuscripts/the/thenys02.xml
-
- There are also two short Youtube versions of the Oedipus musical, that Eric animated himself (rather badly, or campily, by his own admission). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robroams (talk • contribs) 17:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Sigh I do wish people would leave personalities out of this. For the record, sockpuppets are extra accounts operated by one person. When this is used for vandalism or for the purpose of influencing debates by inflating the numbers, this can lead to blocking - after the correct procedure has been gone through. Meatpuppets are like sockpuppets, but are accounts run from associates of the puppetmaster rather than directly. Also can be blockable. Are you going to mount attacks on all of us who try to uphold Wikipedia's standards, or do your bit to save the article? Over to you, whoever (and how many) you may be. No evidence = no article. I'm trying to see if the article is savable. What am I getting? 'Eric is awesome.' Is this Oedipus Complex notable? It was 'optioned' by Papp, but was instead produced as an animated 'ten minute musical'. I quote from "Eric Zaccar (c) 2006 by Central Art Productions Inc." at http://www.encyclopedia.com/video/gXlo1x9mQPU-oedipus-complex-original-rock-miniopera.aspx If you know more, let us know. The world of ten minute musicals is not one I frequent. Peridon (talk) 17:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC) And will everyone please sign their posts with four ~ things - it saves work for the poor signing bot. Thanks.
- Quote from the link above at the NYPL: "File concerning the musical entitled The Oedipus Complex (Book and lyrics by Eric Zaccar; Music by Linda Edlund). Contains script and lyrics." OK. Shows it exists. But no more. Keep trying. Peridon (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
-
- From what I can see, no one, whether a sock puppet, a meat puppet or an independent entity, has criticized any of the wikipedia editors. The ONLY person brought into question is the person who started this debate. He doesn't seem to be an official editor, and he seems to be the only one who's used detrimental phrasing, like "minor" and "marginal." The other wikipedia editors, who seem to work for the company, make logical points. I don't want to say that this first man sounds like a lunatic, because that would be detrimental in itself, but read my prior comments and draw your own conclusions. Signed Rob Stedelin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robroams (talk • contribs) 17:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- I'm not sure if Cindy Adams and Liz Smith, two of the most noted celebrity and theater gossip columnists in New York, actually have their older posts online, but you can find their blurbs about Eric's play, Starr's on Broadway, in the press section of Eric's websites. I believe the dates should be on the articles, if you want to check them for authenticity. They don't usually bother mentioning "minor" and "marginal" writers. Liz's column was nationally syndicated, so that blurb appeared in newspapers all over the country. Starr's on Broadway is also sited on several official Kenneth Starr pages, and is mentioned on the imdb pages of the actors involved (as other actors mention other works of Eric's that they appeared in).
-
-
- I have other things that I need to do, on this beautiful day. I'm sure you do, as well. For a "minor" and trivial entity, Eric is sure taking up a lot of our time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robroams (talk • contribs) 17:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Unpaid Comment The only people who work for Wikipedia in the sense of getting paid by Wikipedia are the technicians and office staff - and by what I've picked up there's not a lot of them. All the rest of us here are Joe Public. Some are visitors commenting on the subject here and nothing more. Some of us are working unpaid to help a valuable resource maintain its accuracy. I use Wikipedia a lot in my research and decided after finding a peculiar bit in an article (and removing it) that it was time to do my bit to help. Sometimes I've got time on my hands. Sometimes I need something to relax me. There is no such thing as an 'official' editor. Anonymous editors have certain restrictions, registered editors fewer, and administrators (also totally voluntary) have certain powers we don't. Up from that one gets to the Hierarchy who deal at policy level (and don't get paid either). Anyone (possibly not anonymous editors) can nominate an article here at AfD or at Speedy level. The decision doesn't rest with the nominator. Sometimes things get thrown straight back as obviously silly nominations. Others go to what is supposed to be a discussion (like this...) and after a time a 'closing admin' will weigh up the arguments and decide yea or nay. Articles may be brought back for retrial, or appeals may be made. Those who perform the closing job are usually experienced. You have to be experienced to get admin powers. I've made over 4000 edits of many sorts and don't think I'm ready yet to apply. (If I want to anyway...) 'Minor' and 'marginal' are his opinions. Go on - PROVE him wrong. Peridon (talk) 18:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC) Please don't ask us to find things - you find them. I need food....
-
- Costly Reply So, what you’re saying is, the first man to write on this page has a right to call someone “marginal” and “minor,” in an internet article that anyone who googles the subject is likely to see? Is this self appointed editor running for office against Eric Zaccar? Is he reviewing one of his plays? As you said, he’s not even paid by wikipedia to offer this opinion. Again, considering the small fortune that is currently invested in this writer’s name and reputation, and considering all the manpower hours that numerous people have put into his current project, I’d say this truly could be considered libelous.
-
- My friend’s twelve year old son was suspended from school for posting negative comments about a classmate on the internet. If the classmate’s family wanted to, they could have filed criminal charged. What right does this man have to take it upon himself to offer slanderous opinions of someone he’s never had any contact with?
-
- Though he did draw first figurative blood, and though most of Eric’s supporters, are rather sharp professionals in the world of entertainment and comedy who can more than match wits with the average computer geeks, I don’t think any of us has actually fought back by stating, outright, that the first person to write on this page has numerous web pages that make him sound, at best, borderline psychotic. However, without using the old cliché about glass houses, I’ll just suggest to this man that people who live in rubber residences should be careful about what they throw into walls. Some of it might bounce back and hit them in the face. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robroams (talk • contribs) 02:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment – Robroams, why don't you stop complaining, making personal attacks, spouting irrelevancies, and threatening legal action, and instead add some reliable source citations to the article? In other words, become pro-active and stop acting like a petulant child … and your constant failure to sign your posts only diminishes your credibility in this forum. BTW, this WP:AfD page will not appear in any Google search, i.e., just the article being discussed, not this discussion. — 141.156.161.245 (talk) 03:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - This NY Times article is a good start on establishing notability. But there needs to be more. I am unable to find more nor has any actual citations been forthcoming. Claiming coverage without specifics is not useful. -- Whpq (talk) 19:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
-
- The New York Times, the New York Post, New York Newsday, the Brooklyn Skyline, Joe Papp's Public Theater Archives, the radio shows of Howard Stern, Joe Franklin, and Joey Reynolds, write ups on Kenneth Starr, imdb pages about actors who've been a part of his pieces. Eric's work has been recognized at one time or another, in all of the above places. Many of them are out there, on the internet, but not everything can be. Archives do exist, somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robroams (talk • contribs) 23:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- If they're out there, then why don't you find them and add them to the article, instead of just dropping names in this forum? Have you even read Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability? — 141.156.161.245 (talk) 03:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Comment – Well, it looks like this article is mostly a copy&paste of http://eric_zaccar.totallyexplained.com/ … can you say, copyright violation? Or is it just Wikipedia:Plagiarism? — 141.156.161.245 (talk) 08:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC) - My bad! … that site is a mirror of an earlier version of the Wikipedia article! — 141.156.161.245 (talk) 09:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - Starr’s on Broadway, Eric Zaccar’s social satire for the stage about the Clinton-Starr-Lewinky absurdities, received such notoriety that Eric and the play are sited in a hundred online references to the former special persecutor. That alone should secure Eric’s place in the books. Michael Sandy’s tragic story is the subject of a rather in depth wikipedia article. Eric’s involvement in that case is discussed in many newspaper articles, and Eric’s upcoming film, Without Hate, should become the definitive record of the story.
- Just because New York Post and nationally syndicated columnists like Cindy Adams and Liz Smith, or newspapers like the Brooklyn Skyline, didn’t always publish their articles online, why does that make them less “official?” I grant you that copies of said articles seem like they can only be found on Eric’s own website, but they’re dated and their authenticity should be easily checkable.
- I really don’t want to spend another day having this debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robroams (talk • contribs) 14:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - There is no requirement that sources be online. Offline sources are perfectly acceptable. If you can provide specific citations to these articles, then other editors can consider them. -- Whpq (talk) 15:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
-
- For example, the bare link http://www.starrplay.com/images/pressclips/cindynew.htm is not as credible as
Adams, Cindy (1999-05-26). "Sexgate, the comedy, is coming to Great White Way". New York Post. and maybe include the page number … at least then someone can look it up at their local library, so it is verifiable, whereas anyone can Photoshop what looks like a newspaper clipping. - OTOH, this example is hardly what one could call "significant coverage", and it's more about one of the subject's works than it is about the subject, so it's still just a "mention". (And I'm not going to try and put any more lipstick on this pig, so you can replace the link with the citation. :-) — 141.156.161.245 (talk) 16:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- You've got to be kidding, right? How anal retentive and how ludicrous do you want to get? You have the dates and the newspapers. If you're going to make the effort to go to the local library and access the New York Post and Newsday from May or June of 1999, it should take another three minutes to find the articles, even without the page numbers. Just to help you out though, if I remember right, the columns of Liz Smith and Cindy Adams generally appeared somewhere around page six or page eight. I can't guarantee this, though. I could guarantee that, if you find the entire newspapers for the dates on top of the articles, you'll find the articles.
-
-
- And as far as the articles being trivial, Cindy Adams and Liz Smith are well known for writing about celebrities. I'm not saying that Eric is a celebrity, but he certainly wouldn't have been worthy of any kind of mention in either of their columns if he wasn't a known and respected writer.
-
-
- Joe Franklin, the oldest established radio host in New York has interviewed everyone from Dean Martin to Frank Sinatra to Julia Roberts to Bill Cosby to Veronica Lake to Marylin Monroe. Oh, and he's interviewed Eric Zaccar on his program, too. I think Eric actually had an open invite to come on whenever he wanted to. Howard Stern has an equally extensive A-list of guests, and he too has had Eric on, more than once. I'm not sure how this information can be verified, but I would bet that Eric has tapes. If you had a direct E-Mail, rather than an IP number that replaced your rather questionable name, we could probably figure out how to send you audio clips. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robroams (talk • contribs) 21:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Very strong keep Even if there were no other references, a full NYT article entirely devoted to him is proof of notability--or, if one prefers, very close to a proof of notability, and just needing to be supported by another source, and there are several. The NYT article is about both the play and the playwright. Anyway, a NYT full review of a play a playwright's work proves the notability of the play & writing notable plays what makes playwright's notable. I am really amazed at the assertion that this is not significant coverage. Once the references were presented here, the AfD should have been withdrawn. Anyone who sees this is responsible for adding them to the article, and for one editor to blame another for not doing what he could equally well have done himself is not very logical. Similarly, if the article needs trimming to remove promotional language, anyone who understands the subject should do so. DGG ( talk ) 16:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{Rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron.
- Delete as not notable. If it mattered, it would be a Strong Delete because (1) none of the editors !voting keep have added a single solid reference to the article, (2) the editor who added the {{rescue}} tag added nothing else to the article, and (3) the sheer vitriol and WP rule breaking by the SPA's above. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Please read WP:DEL none of those are reasons to delete. WP:JNN isn't and neither is the fact that the article hasn't greatly improved during this AfD. Also, anyone other than me suspecting that the socks are trying to get this deleted? Just ignore them and look at the sources. Hobit (talk) 23:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I've tried to add references, but self proclaimed editors and lords over this site keep taking them out or putting them in different places. Again, for one project or another, Eric has been covered in the biggest New York Newspapers and on the top radio shows. All of that should say that he's at least some kind of force to be reckoned with. From what I can see, that article has been up for at least a year or two, and it hasn't bothered or hurt anyone. These debates are torturous. Who gets to decide that large companies can use this site to promote their products, white collar criminals are article worthy, but writers, who are out there making it happen, are not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robroams (talk • contribs) 14:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC) - Comment If you find promotional articles, please nominate them either for Conflict of Interest or Spam. Just as we do. The big company articles are not BY the companies, but about them. They often say things the companies don't like and are usually monitored in case this gets removed. Spam articles come from small businesses on the whole, and are placed by someone in the company. If the company is considered notable enough for an article, the promotional stuff gets removed and the article tidied up (and monitored...). If not, it goes. Any article can be edited by anyone - subject to restrictions on certain controversial topics. If the references are worthwhile, mention them here and we'll see what we think. They may not be suitable - myspace and youtube (for examples) normally are not considered reliable evidence. Peridon (talk) 17:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for helping to make my point. Eric Zaccar's play, HOUSING was considered controversial, even though the whole statement it was trying to make was that the city of New York has every dime and every resource at it's disposal to house every homeless person, if the actual housing department used it's resources efficiently. Eric's social satire for the stage, STARR'S ON BROADWAY, also generally caused heated debates among audience members because of it's viewpoints on many political issues, from nuclear bombs to Watergate to the Kennedy assassination to civil rights to freedom of speech to (the play's title character), Kenneth Starr. We're counting on the publicity coming from the controversy that should surround Eric's upcoming film, WITHOUT HATE, because of the rather sensitive subject matter that has extreme supporters and opponents on both sides. What should not be controversial is Eric himself, and a simple, non-political, objective, non-promotional, non-opinionated little article about him. I’m sorry if I have no interest in objecting to the wikipedia pages that promote big companies. If people aren’t hurting me, or hurting anyone else I know, I really don’t feel the need to interfere with their business. Ask Eric to do it. If said companies are doing anything hurtful or immoral, he might be willing to make them the subject of his next major work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robroams (talk • contribs) 17:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC) - No The articles I refer to are ones like Sex, Muhammed, or Jesus, where fanatics, idiots and schoolboys tend to head. These and many similar (and one or two rather unlikely sounding ones) have restrictions. Eric Zaccar's play doesn't quite rate that high in terms of controversy-magnetism. Peridon (talk) 21:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
You missed my point, but once again somehow managed to make it for me. Eric's plays may or may not be controversial. That's not the issue here. Is Eric himself, and a simple article stating basic facts about him, controversial enough to warrant all this debate? WITHOUT HATE, the upcoming film of Eric's screenplay, will cause controversy. That's almost guaranteed. But again, I don't see that as the issue here. Goodnight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robroams (talk • contribs) 07:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC) - Sigh The issue here is not the new play - that falls foul of WP:CRYSTAL anyway. The issue is his notability, which I can't see. The NY Times article reads to me like a story about someone who got sacked for wasting company time than about a noteworthy playwright. There's an animated short on YouTube which was based on something 'optioned' by a notable figure (but obviously not taken up. A mention in a file description in the NY libraries. I can't see much other claim to notability. I could be wrong. I haven't got the time to dig for references. And I'm not seeing much appearing. Peridon (talk) 18:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- delete fails WP:BIO. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - this nomination effectively boils down to whether the one relevent reliable source that can be found ([17]) is enough to confer notability on to the subject. My opinion is that whilst one source can sometimes be enough to meet the notability threshold - whether in itslef or as confirmation of some other criteria - this is not one of those cases. In this case the source is a newspaper and is from the local news section of the newspaper; the complete lack of coverage apart from this source (and the content of the source itself) to me indicates passing local coverage - even if the locality is one of the greatest cities in the world - which does not normally establish notability. Guest9999 (talk) 21:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Notability has not been established Captain panda 21:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep per DGG's well-reasoned argument. It's also worth noting that the article subject and his writings have received coverage in all three major NYC papers at various times; even though the Post and Daily News pieces aren't online, and are documented only on a website controlled by the subject [18], the site posts article scans, which are complete enough to be self-verifying. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep we've got a NYT's article and we don't need all (or any really) sources to be on-line. Looks like we've got at least 3 RSes per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and the NYTs one is very very strong indeed. Hobit (talk) 23:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 11:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC) - Note: During this discussion, the article was moved to Jews and Hollywood per several suggestions below.
- Controversies related to prevalence of Jews in leadership roles in Hollywood (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: "Controversies related to prevalence of Jews in leadership roles in Hollywood" — search, news, books, scholar, images )
Article mainly pulls tidbits from other WP articles, appears to have some reliable source issues, and has some definite POV issues. Bringing it here for further conversation about its appropriateness for WP. Frmatt (talk) 20:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC) - Delete Basically a WP:COATRACK to parade a collection of collection of assertions about Jewish people in Hollywood. No need for this at all. Black Kite 21:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Straight forward WP:COATRACK. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete anti-semitic coatrack. Crafty (talk) 21:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep - For several reasons: -
- The specific criticism levied by African-Americans (that Hollywood portrays them in an insulting manner) is not covered anywhere else in the encyclopedia, and is noteworthy, and is very substantial. That cannot be buried.
- The prevelance of Jews in Hollywood leadership positions is a notable topic, that is is subject of many articles and books, including An Empire Of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood
- Many notable commentators have written on this topic, including Michael Medved, J. J. Goldberg, and Joel Stein (see the article for details)
- There is a long history of anti-semitism (on the topic of Jews in the movie industry) stretching back a century to Henry Ford. Just as there are many, many articles on specific aspects of antisemitism, there should be an article on this particular aspect. This particular variety of antisemitism is approximately as noteworthy as Well poisoning or Kosher tax (not to suggest that those are not significant).
- Antisemitism is bigotry. Hiding information about it just makes it fester. Exposing antisemitism to the bright light of scrutiny in this Encyclopedia robs it of its power.
-
- --Noleander (talk) 21:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
-
- I doubt the issue of African-American portrayals in Hollywood isn't handled elsewere. Moreover, if it isn't then it could reasonably have its own article. Putting it in "Controversies related to prevalence of Jews in leadership roles in Hollywood" seems a bit strange. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- I do not get this final justification for keeping it - is it the purpose of Wikipedia to "rob" anti-Semitism of "its power?" Aside from the fact that like Sartre I just do not agree with the premise, that the "cause" of anti-Semitism has to do with misinformation (I know lots of uninformed good people who wouold never tolerate the hatred of a race; like Sartre I think people are anti-Semites because they are hateful people, not because of what they do or do nto know about Jews), I did not think it is Wikipedia's purpose to fight bigotry. This is not a question of hiding information, it is a question of staying on-mission, which is to write encyclopedia articles, not to scrutinize popular beliefs and jusge them to be right or wrong. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Potential anti-semitic coatrack composed of original research Avi (talk) 21:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Coatrack, etc. Goes along well with his other recent article, though. --jpgordon::==( o ) 21:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete/split into individual articles. Dealing with a plurality ("Controversies ...") makes this too coatracky for me, but I take Noleander's point as article creator that some/many/all of the controversies may be notable individually. Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 21:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep. The subject actually seems rather notable, but the content might need some rewording. To that end I've copy-edited the lede somewhat, but more could be needed. I understand the gut-reactions to this, but we have many articles that describe the prevalence of hatred in specific contexts. It's something that happens, and can be described, without being in support of it. We have Anti-Americanism, for example, which describes a notion that's historically been quite common, and I don't really see much difference here. As I said, the wording may just need some tweaking. Equazcion (talk) 21:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC) Changing my vote to undecided/neutral. I'm having trouble interpreting the POV fork policy as it relates to articles like this. I always thought of POV forking as being something like "Jews are bad", with content that makes an argument about why Jews could be considered bad. I never thought of it applying to merely reporting occurrences in history where people have said such things. If that is indeed within the intended scope of POV forking, then the article should be deleted; I'm just not sure that it is, or that it should be. Equazcion (talk) 22:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC) -
- What evidence is there that it is notable, except in the minds of anti-Semites? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- [20], and I'm sure there's more. Equazcion (talk) 21:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- The satirical column of a syndicated humorist? I don't see how his using a poll that says it is a non-issue as a way to poke fun at his own race somehow makes this "notable." The theory of evolution, Jurassic Park, and the Health Care Crisis in the US, thse are all notable. But a parodic personal comment? How? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't read the article fully, and didn't pick up from my skimming that it was satirical. But this article has a whole list of references; are you saying none of them establish notability of the subject? Equazcion (talk) 21:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- Joel Stein's article did include some humor, but none of the other articles were humorous. --Noleander (talk) 07:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- I don't mind the author of this "article" tring to defend it, but get real. Joel Stein's column (it is a column not an article; in newpapers and magazines the distinction is important, and to call it an article is to misrepresent it) "did include some humor?" That is like saying Eddie Murphy's stand-up routine "contained some humor." They guy is a comedian, for goodness sake! The whole thing is a joke, literally. It is not a reliable source on this topic. What does this failure to recognize a reliable/unreliable source for an encyclopedia article tell us? Slrubenstein | Talk 09:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete I do not see any issue of hiding a discussion of anti-Semitism - we have a whole article on anti-Semitism, for goodness' sake, it is not hidden. I have seen Spike Lee's Bamboozled and a PBS documentary on representations of blacks in film and TV and Robert Townsend's Hollywood Shuffle - it seems to me that all of this ought to be covered in the article on racism. I do not see why it is necessary to turn this into a black versus jew thing, though. Surely one can cover racist stereotypes in the US, including the entertainment industry, without making anti-Semitic attacks. And if some people have done just that, so what? We do not need an article on it. How is this particular topic encyclopedic? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- I haven't checked but if there are reliable articles specifically on the black-vs.-jew subject, then it might deserve its own article here. However this article isn't actually about that, just about controversies in general related to Jewish leadership in Hollywood. If the article contains too much black-vs.-jew examples and no others, then maybe it should be renamed; or gotten rid of, if that specific topic has no outside coverage. Equazcion (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- I see that the African-American examples are just contained in one section, so the notability of the article shouldn't be judged based on that. More than half the article has nothing to do with the black-vs.-jew topic. Equazcion (talk) 21:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - lots of sources all cobbled together, but there's not enough meat about the "Controversies" to make for a whole article. Perhaps a greatly reduced discussion about Hollywood demographics could be merged into Cinema of the United States. But, this is just a list of stuff people said. See WP:Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.--Blargh29 (talk) 21:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see how it's indiscriminate, but it does seem list-like. More integration would really help, but again that doesn't seem like a reason to delete. Equazcion (talk) 22:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- It's indiscriminate in that the bulk of the article is is the format of "Brando said this" and "Farrakan said that."--Blargh29 (talk) 22:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- Regardnig the extensive use of quotes: That was deliberate. I view excessive quotes, in general, as non-encyclopedic, and indicative of a poor quality article. But in the case of a controversial topic such as this, I thought that paraphrasing or re-phrasing the sources would open the article up to be criticized for showing "editor bias" (via choice of words, emphasis, etc). It seems unfair to cite the quotes as a downside to the article, when they were chosen to avoid even the perception of improper bias. --Noleander (talk) 07:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. Possibly rename. Certainly sharpen the focus to be more on the general issue, rather than specific cases. IMO this kind of touchy cultural assumption is something highly worthy of rigorous assessment and analysis; as the saying goes, "sunlight is the best antiseptic". In particular, I think the WP process on a high traffic page actually works quite well (usually) to evolve a reasonably well-balanced well-researched article that complies with WP:NPOV; and that is something that can be a real asset to bring into existence on the net, even more so the more potentially full of poison a subject is, like this one, and therefore the more it needs a sane, well-balanced NPOV treatment to let the real truth emerge. As regards policy, I have not the slightest doubt that reputable academic secondary sources exist in this area, so I am quite certain but that the topic satisfies WP:NOTABILITY Jheald (talk) 22:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm decently certain there will be no issues with using parts of the material to write an encyclopedic treatment of particular cultural influences on Hollywood, and I agree with you that the topic may be notable enough to be treated in this way.
But this page has severe structural issues that are not amenable to keeping. RayTalk 22:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC) Delete There are certain presentations of particular topics that are not encyclopedic and by their very nature invite severe violations of neutrality. This is one of them. RayTalk 22:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC) - Striking my !vote, as article has changed dramatically since I posted the above comment. RayTalk 04:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. unsalvageable coatrack. we have documented proof that the early days of hollywood had a strong jewish influence, and there are currently many people of jewish descent working at the upper echelons (as well as lower) of the entertainment industry, probably at a higher percentage than in the general population. that i get, its uncontroversial. however, any controversies involving INDIVIDUAL producers, etc. who HAPPEN to be jewish, should simply be covered in the appropriate article spaces. unless there is a sourced, reliable reference to a pattern of distinctly "jewish" (and not just "greedy corporate bastard", {as if jews have any sort of monopoly on unethical business practices}) problems in hollywood, and some sort of response from a neutral source acknowledging the problem (not the ADL denouncing it as anti-semitic, which it IS if the accusation is not fully backed up with uncontroversial facts), i really dont see how this article can pass muster. its inherently POV. any overuse of stereotypes in the business has more to do with the nature of popular entertainment and the pressure to make money, which again is NOT a jewish problem, but a business problem and a general social problem. I would encourage the creator to focus on specific, well documented events, if any, and slowly build some well sourced, NPOV sections in articles already extant.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see any controversies involving individual producers. There are reliable references showing a pattern of perceived Jewish problems in Hollywood, perception alone being the subject of the article. Your argument is that the problem itself of Jewish influence in Hollywood must be adequately proven to exist at least somewhat, but that's not what the article is about. Anti-Americanism is likewise about a common perception, with no final judgment as to its validity. Editors must be NPOV in their editing, but we can still write articles about prominent POV's that exist in the world. Equazcion (talk) 22:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Anti-semitic WP:Coatrack using WP:Original research.ShamWow (talk) 00:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Can anyone here describe to me exactly how WP:COATRACK applies to this article? My interpretation of the essay is that a coatrack is an article created under false pretexts. I see nothing of the sort here. The essay states that a coatrack makes reference to a "nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject. This article openly declares that it's about controversies related to Jewish prevalence in Hollywood, and goes on to describe exactly that, with no tangent that I can see. Equazcion (talk) 00:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- I was wondering the same thing: I'm not too familiar with the Coatrack policy, but certainly it cannot say "articles may not consist of a list of statements from notable sources on a single topic". That would eliminate a large fraction of articles in the encyclopedia :-) To be defective, the list of sources would either have to be (1) artifically assembled, so they have no cohesion or uniformity; or (2) missing balancing information. I dont believe this article has either of those problems. --Noleander (talk) 07:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete If nothing else, you have to go in order: "Hollywood," then "Leadership of Hollywood," then "Leadership controversies in Hollywood," and only if all of that, then "Controversies related to this or that in Leadership of Hollywood." (The same can be done via history of Hollywood, if that is seen to be the topic). But starting such detailed articles on one aspect of controversy (if this is a mainstream controversy, which I'm not sure it is) creates a WP:POVFORK. Mackan79 (talk) 02:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep I didn't expect to say this, but this does indeed cover the significant attacks made on the Jewish role in the industry--I would suggest a retitle, using "role" or "influence" instead of "prevalence". Except for the title I don't consider it anti-semitic--if anything I read it as an exposé of anti-semitism. The initial sentence linking it to portrays of blacks should not be in that prominent a position, as it's only one of the themes. I urge people to actually read all of the article before commenting on it. DGG ( talk ) 03:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- I concur with your assessment. The point of the article was: "Here is this topic that lots of people write about, many in a bigoted way. Even significant Jewish film critics like Medved feel compelled to write articles about it. Let's bring it out into the bright sunlight of this encyclopedia and expose it for what it is. I apologize if it came of as anti-semitic: the intention was just the opposite. --Noleander (talk) 07:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, I am taking what you just wrote in good faith but what do you mean "expose?" Since when is it Wikipedia's job to "expose?" We had this argument a long time ago when discussuing adding current events to the main page. We decided that Wikipedia would be a place to summarize the press coverage of current events, but that Wikipedia is not an on-line newspaper and we are not reporters of original news. Nor are we the Drudge report. This is not the place to expose the wrongs of the world, it is the place to write NPOV articles on encyclopedic topics. I still do not see how this is encyclopedia. I am willing to grant that your motive to expose bigotry is a good one, in general, but it is still a misuse of Wikipedia - how does what you write now in any way justify the article? Slrubenstein | Talk 11:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I see your point. But the distinction between this article and "current events" is the following: This article is covering an issue that has been under discussion for a century, starting with Henry Ford. (although I think the article was recently pared-down so it only contains a few writings that were authored in the past decade ... it used to have some older references also). As for "why is it encyclopedic" ... my test is: if a topic is written about by several notable people over a long period of time, then that is a valid topic for the encyclopedia. For example, if something is a current even now, and several notable authors write about, it, it doesnt necessarily belong in this encyl; but if ten years later, other notable authors are _still_ writing about it, then I would say it should be an ency article. And, I believe, the subject of this article meets that requirement. --Noleander (talk) 13:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- weak keep I think DGG may be write but it still reads very essayish. Certainly the title at minimum would need to be changed as per DGG. I'd actually prefer "Controversies related to alleged influence of Jews in leadership roles in Hollywood." I do however think that the article may need a lot of work to move off of the essayish form. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - WP:Coatrack. POV and OR seem to apply here as well. The title alone could prove as fodder for antisemites. --Nsaum75 (talk) 04:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete All coatrack articles that rely on quotes from well known people for their substance are a disaster: SYNTH, OR, POV. An encyclopedic article on a something like this would have to be based on scholarly research where someone independent has reached some conclusion. Johnuniq (talk) 04:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Seems a likely way to disguise sentiments of anti-semiticism behind some pretext of respectability, won't work though...Modernist (talk) 04:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - I've just performed a major cutdown of the article. My aim was to remove the "list of quotes" aspect that basically accuses individuals of antisemitism, to address the (somewhat correct) claims of synthesis and original research. I agree the article should be limited to authors'/columnists assessments of the situation, per Johnuniq's comment, which was very helpful. Please review the change and reassess the article, if necessary. Thanks. Equazcion (talk) 04:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- What is left for the most part is not about any controversy, it is about three things: first, how Jews coming the the United States at the turn of the 20th century were constrained from successfully entering some vocations or professions, leaving the coincidentally new film industry an open opportunity; second, how even so Jews had to pass as gentiles and bend over backwards to avoid accusations of being un-American, even if it meant turning against one anothes, and finally, that jews today (and perhaps all Americans) should be proud that immigrants can find success in America. This is a story about immigration to the US. The problem is that the quotes are taken out of context, and used to suggest Noleanderson's canard that the Jews run Hollywood. That is not the point of most of these sources, but then again, this is why we have our NOR policy - when you take primary sources out of context, it usually means some Wikipedian editor is pushing her own point of view. Reading what is left from your edit all I can do is ask, where is any citation of the vast secondary literature on debates about upward mobility in the US, transnational immigrationl, and diaspora studies, that would provide the proper context for these quotes? That would lead to an enecyclopedic article. As is, it is just a sleazy way to promote the Jews run Hollywood canard. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- So add that perspective to the article and fix it. That way, the top hit someone will get if they look up this subject on Google will be a Wikipedia article that sets out the proper context of the topic, and the world will be a (very slightly) better place. Jheald (talk) 11:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- That is not another "perspective," it is another article. An article I agree might have a place here, but the thing to do is get rid of this article and start from scratch, building up carefully from reliable scholalry sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- This looks to me like an assumption of bad faith. It seems like we can't possibly make any progress as far as you're concerned, because you feel the author had an ulterior motive. Forget the motive, and pretend someone you know and trust wrote the article. Pretend the author was not trying to show that Jews run Hollywood, but that people tend to think Jews run Hollywood. Following AFD (or maybe even now) we can move the article to a title that better reflects that, such as "Controversies related to the perceived Jewish prevalence in Hollywood". I've basically gotten rid of most of the article already, so just try and add what you think is missing. If the subject has potential, as you say, then once you change the title and replace the content, deletion shouldn't still be necessary. Equazcion (talk) 15:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Dude, I am just trying to be constructive, by pointing out that your edits point to a different article but one that I think might make a contribution to the encyclopedia. But when it comes to the canard "that people tend to think Jews run Hollywood" I just do not think that this merits more space than a section in the anti-Semitism article on forms anti-Semitism takes today. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
-
- What would the title of this other article be, the one that you think the present content points to, and that might make a contribution to the encyclopedia? PS. "People tending to think Jews run Hollywood" is not the canard. Many people do indeed think that. The canard would be "Jews run Hollywood". What the article aims to be about is the former, which is not deliberately misleading. Equazcion (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well, given that most of the quotes talk about what economic and creative opportunities have and have not been available to Jews in America, I would actually consider a section on precisely this theme in the article on History of Jews in America. But you need reliable secondary sources, as I said I would look at articles in journals that publish on migration and diasporic studies as well as American jewish history. If you can't find any articles on this theme, then I'd say it is not notable enough to be put into an article. But I would be surprised in there are no scholarly articles on economic and creative opportunities that have and have not been available to Jews in America, and I'd be surprised if none mentioned Hollywood. Are there any reputable scholars who have suggested that Judaism or Jewish identity itself played a role in the kind of films Jews happened to produce? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Sources on the opportunities available to Jews seem less relevant, though. An article based on those kinds of references, while talking about their perceived leadership role in Hollywood, would then be synthesis. Here we already have people talking about the perception itself. Reputable authors don't need to be the ones who have that perception; They need only be the ones talking about it. A POV's prominence and worthiness of an article isn't dependent on scholarly people actually sharing that POV. Equazcion (talk) 19:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- Slrubenstein: I agree that the Hollywood issue is just another Antisemitic canard. But then we are back to the original question: Why is the Hollywood canard missing from the article Antisemitic canard? Should it be mentioned in that article? If so, how much detail should go into that section? Is there enough detail and notability to merit a sub-article specifically on the Hollywood canard? One way of looking at _this_ article is that it was jumping ahead to a "Yes" answers on the above questions. If the article was poorly written, okay, I can admit that. But I believe the spirit of Wikipedia is to _improve_ articles (when they are on notable topics) rather than delete them. --Noleander (talk) 16:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Why did you create a new article rather than put this in the Antisemitic canard article? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- S1rubenstein: Thanks for replying to my question. I leaned towards a new article because the Antisemitic canard article looked rather high quality and mature, and I was afraid of hosing it up. I figured that I could present the new article, add it to the "Antisemitism" category, and then other editors would then notice it and help decide if it should be (1) instead integrated into antoher article; or (2) left as its own article and just improved. Unfortunately, neither of those happened. But, looking at this AfD, I can see now that the better course of action would have been to first go to the Talk page of the Antisemitic canard article and start there with a proposal and see what other editors thought. Hindsight is 20-20. --Noleander (talk) 20:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
-
- It seems to me there is some material here relating to antisemitic canards, some to standard history, and perhaps some to other topics. Gabler's book, for instance, isn't just about canards, and suggests material for History of Jews in the United States if the article were so detailed. Of course you can ask whether there should be encyclopedia articles on what various religious or ethnic groups are up to in their free time. I don't suppose anyone is interested to write Christians and NASCAR. There is an article on Black participation in college basketball, if that's instructive. Mackan79 (talk) 00:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
-
- That is an excellent question, one that Im sure has been debated on Wikepedia many times. My opinion is that an intersection between an ethnicity and a vocation/endeavor should be in Wikipedia _only_ if the intersection itself is notable. A good example might be "Irish in the police dept of New York in early 20th century". Lots has been written about that intersection, and there is all kinds of sociology and history around it (poor Irish immigrants arriving in desperate straights; Influence on law-and-order in NY, etc). Another might be "Italians and Organized Crime". I contend that "Jews in Hollywood", in particular "Antisemitic canards about Jews in Hollywood" is notable under that guideline, because lots has been written about that intersection by notable people. --Noleander (talk) 00:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Again, not structured like an encyclopedia article - a persuasive (not persuasive, but that's the genre) essay, which should be deleted. Why is the editor writing this tripe still here? Hipocrite (talk) 11:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
-
- Do you mean "still here" at AfD or "still here" at WP? This page is only for discussion of the proposed deletion of this article. Do you believe this one case is an example of a larger pattern of abuse, soapboxing, coatrackiong, or whatever (if so, you might wish to comment at the post I made at AN/I, or find another venue to discuss a larger issue). Slrubenstein | Talk 11:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete as an essay based on original research and synthesis. The sources given don't support the conclusions made in the article - and why is the article coming to conclusions anyway? That's not what an encyclopedia is supposed to do, and it contravenes Wikipedia guidelines and policy. --NellieBly (talk) 12:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- I get the distinct impression that some editors are making comments here without having read the article. The article was carefully drafted to avoid making any inferences or drawing any conclusions. The article is simply documenting a particular antisemitic canard - which has been commented upon many notable people - that Jews hold many leadership positions in hollywood. The article, to minimize the appearance of bias, consists primarily of quotes from notable authors or Hollywood figures on the topic. Note that many of the sources in the article have POSITIVE things to say about the claim, such as "Jews deserve these roles because they worked damn hard and established a thriving industry in the deserts of So. Cal". There was no conclusion in the article. Some of the "delete" comments seem to be knee-jerk reactions that are issued without having read the article. --Noleander (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- I read the article, before and after another editor made many cuts. What people are trying to explain to you is that you mis an important part of our NOR policy if you think that just stringing together quotes ensures neutraility. You have taken quotes out of context. By stringing together different quotes, you have created a new context. Taking things out of context and recontextualizing is a way to create meaning - even if you did not add a word of your own. It certainly does not minimize bias. The check against original research is to see what arguments established researchers - people published by university presses, or in peer-reviewed journals have to say about it. I asked you what makes this an encyclopdic topic and I do not agree with your response, above. For me what would make this an encyclopedic topic is if anyone studying anti-Semitism (historian, sociologist, etc) has analyzed these anti-semitic remarks. if no scholar has published any research on them, I'd say that no, they are not notable. If a scholar, or severl scholars, have analyzed this canard, then the article should be organized around their analysis, and if there is a debate among cholars as to the meaning of the canard, around the debates. I don't see anything like that. Instead i just se uotes taken out of context and strung together simply to say: Jews have been accused of running Hollywood, and some Jews have commented positively on Jewish success in Hollywood. This is not the "antiseptic" of fresh air, it serves no purpose, it does not educate it just provides a venue for repeating racism. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- That seems a rather pessimistic view. Why assume this will garner racism, rather than attract positive information, such as the scholarly works you would have liked to see in the article? Also, scholarly works aren't needed to prove notability of the topic. Many of the present references are from reliable sources. The fact that no scholarly works are present is something that can be fixed, and doesn't point to a need to delete the article. Equazcion (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- It is not pessimistic, given the current state of the article, and the lack on progress on rewriting it since this discussion began. IF the article had a specific explanation for how and why this canard first came to be used by anti-Semites, and what this particular canard says about the sources and nature of anti-Semitism in the US, then it might have th positive function you seem to hope it would have. Even so I'd think this would all be better suited to being a section in the antisemitic canard article. Be that as it may, we would need an account of scholarly analysis drawing on reliable sources that tells us what this canard reveals about anti-Semites. As long as such discussion is missing, a have to say yours is a rather pollyannaish view. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- This discussion has been going for 2 days. I wouldn't expect enough progress in that time so as to be a microcosm for prediction of future progress. "what this canard reveals about anti-Semites" might be a good addition to this article, but I don't see how the lack of that makes the topic non-notable. You're stating some personal standards for inclusion that I think are rather irrelevant to Wikipedia. Equazcion (talk) 17:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - the essay-like approach to the subject is unencyclopedic to begin with, and reads as a piece of WP:OR / WP:SYNTH in the form of an opinion piece. It is also based on a premise (that Jews control Hollywood and that the matter gives rise to controversies) that is itself rather suspect. This premise, along with its sisters - Jews control world banking, Jews control American policy, etc. has often been described as an antisemitic one. We can't afford to organize the encyclopedia around opinions in this way. If there are issues about Jews in hollywood, then an article based on the neutral subject, e.g. Jews in the entertainment industry, would have to pass muster as a notable, encyclopedic subject, not a derivative article on problems with Jews in the entertainment industry. I'm also concerned by the article creator's similarly biased Misuse of antisemitic accusations, and coverage of the book An Empire Of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood. This looks like a troubling POV campaign. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete/merge to Cinema of the United States. Rd232 talk 17:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - The problems mentioned above are fixable, so no reason to delete. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Proposal to start over as a subsection within Antisemitic canard - A discussion above in this AfD led to the suggestion that perhaps the topic of this article would be better presented as a new section within the existing Antisemitic canard article (that suggestion is buried above, so I thought I'd repeat it here as a new bullet). That notion seems good to me. --Noleander (talk) 20:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete this and all such coat-racks. That there are crackpot conspiracy about the jooz in the movie industry, in banking, as secret hands behind the shadowy One world government that wants to destroy us all, is not in question. We have a whole host of articles that deal with these conspiracies and other anti-semtic fever dreams (Blood libel, anyone?) We shouldn't host personal essays even when they aren't a coatrack for attacks on people or groups. But when they are such a coatrack, dealing with the problem is easier still.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- I continue my bewilderment as to how WP:COATRACK applies to this article. So far no one answered my request above for an explanation. To repeat, the coatrack essay describes using the nominal mention of a topic as a pretext to launch into a tangential discussion. This article says it's about controversies related to prevalence of Jews in Hollywood, and that's exactly what is contained in it. So please, anyone and everyone who voted based on coatrack, show that you actually have a reason for saying that, and weren't just hopping on the bandwagon. Equazcion (talk) 20:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - I am sorry, but wouldn’t this be classified as Orginal Research? There is no film with this title, there is no book with this title, there is no documentary with this title. In fact, I could not find anything published, from reliable - third party - independent sources with this title. Other than Wikipedia. Have I missed something? Are we now publishing original investigation and opinions? Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 22:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Not every article is about a media title like a book or movie. That's far from an article requirement. Equazcion (talk) 22:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
-
- What than is the requirement this article would fall under? I thought one of the necessities here at Wikipedia, for inclusion, was that a piece’s subject had to be notable - verifiable - referenced from third party sources and written in a NPOV. Does this article fit that bill? Maybe I am misreading something. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 23:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Shoess: Wikipedia already contains many articles about antisemitic bigotry. (see Antisemitic canard). The key question, to me at least, is: Why are we considering deletion of "Jews Control Hollywood" but keeping Host desecration or well poisoning. I mean, there is a whole article on The Franklin Prophecy canard, a topic Ive never even heard of before. Doesnt "Jews control Hollywood" deserve an article, or at least a section in another article? --Noleander (talk) 23:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Welcome to Wikipedia! If you ever figure out what stays and what goes, let me know! We will both make millions on the advertisements. Regarding my personal opinions on what should be included and when I voice a delete opinion or keep, are a different matter. With regards to Keep, if an article has third party - verifiable - independent sources from a reliable and creditable sources, it has my affirmative opinion to keep. Regardless of the material, or my personal opinion on the cloth or rationalization of the material. However, when I see a piece, though well written, can not justify its conclusions or even point to respected publications that follows the same thought process, from third party - verifiable - independent sources from a reliable and creditable basis, I have to say delete. Sorry to say, in this particular piece, I see conclusions drawn from a number of different references, without support from other sources coming to the same conclusions, and to me that constitutes Orginial Research. In that Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and encyclopedia’s only publishes material that is provided by third party - verifiable - independent sources from a reliable and creditable material I can not support this piece. Thanks for listening. ShoesssS Talk 01:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
-
- The topic of the article is "The antisemitic canard: 'Jews Control Hollywood' ". When I created the article, I thought that title might be offensive, so I tried to find a gentler title that conveyed the same idea, and came up with "... prevelance of Jews in leadership roles ...". Unfortunately, the selected title is causing confusion. As for notability of the topic, it is widely discussed by notable persons from Henry Ford, to Michael Medved, to the President of the Catholic League, to ... well, see the article (the original version of the article had more notable sources). --Noleander (talk) 23:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Noleander, please feel free to revert the article to the state it was in before I cut it down, if you think that would have a better chance of survival. I thought the WP:SYN concerns could be addressed by removing the list of 'celebrity' quotes that sounded antisemitic, and focusing instead on columnists' assessments of the situation. I may have been wrong though and won't complain if you want to revert it. Equazcion (talk) 23:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Weak keep based on the fact it is a well-known urban legend/racist allegation that "The Jews control Hollywood". However, the article in its current form doesn't address the phenomena itself: for example, there is no attempt to identify when this allegation first emerged or who says it. Unless this article is re-written to cover the issue per se, it runs the risk of being a crank magnet -- which I assume was one unvoiced motivation for nominating it for deletion. -- llywrch (talk) 23:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Regurgitated anti-Semitism that was discredited decades ago. The article is an embarrassment. Warrah (talk) 02:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, it is discredited. But the encyclopedia documents many bigoted, discredited antisemitic canards ... see article Antisemitic canard. I understand that the topic of the article is distasteful, but that is no reason to exclude it from the encyclopedia. This encyclopedia includes many discredited theories and observations, see, for example, Stereotypes and Phrenology (drawing racist conclusions from skull shape). If the article is poorly written, or does not include enough balancing information, let's improve it. But deleting it seems at odds with the inclusion of so many other antisemitic canards that are already documented in Wikipedia. Do you think the topic "Antisemitic canard: Jews Control Hollywood" is not notable? --Noleander (talk) 17:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - It is important to point out that the article, as originally written, contained many examples of how the antisemitic canard has been discredited. They tend to fall into the following groups: (1) The primary motiviation of the Hollywood was to make a profit, not prodcue propaganda; (2) there was never any proof of any conspiracy or nepharious purpose; and (3) [this is from Gabler]: Throughout the 20th century, many Hollywood producers were striving to be assiilated into US society, and worked hard to mainstream their business, and thus avoided anything provocative or propgandistic. There is a fourth point that I did not include in the article, but thought of including: (4) Many Jewish Hollywood figures were unfairly targted during the 1950's red-baiting McCarthy witch-hunts, and that contradicts the theory that somehow Hollywood had excessive influence in America. --Noleander (talk) 17:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Friendly Reminder: Open Questions - There were a couple of questions posed above, and getting answers may help achieve consensus on this AfD. Could an editor that recommended "delete" please provide some input on these? They are:
-
- Question 1) How does this article violate the WP:Coatrack policy? Reason for question: The article is about "The antisemitic canard that 'Jews Control Hollywood' ". The article consists of a collection of examples of the canard, and commentaries on the canard (note: some commentaries and examples have recently been deleted from the article). The fact that the article is a list (and a poorly written list, at that :-) gives the appearance of being a coatrack, but in fact all the sources are coherent and on-topic.
- Question 2) What is the criterion for deciding whether or not an antisemitic canard is included in this encyclopedia? Reason for question: This encyclopedia contains many canards, several with their own articles, such as The Franklin Prophecy and Well poisoning. The "Jews Control Hollywood" canard is old (dating back a century to Henry Ford and the Dearborn Independent) and is well-documented, so the "Jews Control Hollywood" canard appears to be notable.
- Disclaimer: I am the originator of the article, and recommended "Keep". But in the spirit of collaboration, it would be nice to get answers to these questions to help achieve consensus. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 16:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
-
- Are you looking for an explanation from every editor who !voted delete? The reason I ask is, I feel I explained the relevance of WP:COATRACK in my !vote, and a quick scan of the early !votes suggests many other editors did too - for example, the first !vote was from Black Kite who said "Basically a WP:COATRACK to parade a collection of collection of assertions about Jewish people in Hollywood". My concern is that BK's explanation may not be very clear, in which case my explanation probably isn't either, and likely other explanations that make sense to me may not make sense to others. Shout if that's the case and I'll certainly clarify my !vote. Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 20:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Some have explained, but their explanations don't actually seem to fit with the actual WP:COATRACK essay. The nominator himself says below that he doesn't feel that coatrack actually applies here. I've summarized coatrack twice on this page, each time asking for an explanation that connects the issue described there with this article. I'm still not seeing that yet. Equazcion (talk) 20:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- (ec) Well I'll leave it to others to explain themselves (and I doubt I've ever participated in an AfD where the nominator anticipated or agreed with everyone !voting delete... ;-) ), but for my part I said that the plurality of the title ("Controversies...") made it "coatracky". I don't think the creator of the article created it as "a cover for a tangentially related biased subject", but I do feel the focus of the article is too broad and act as a bias-magnet - hence my comment re: taking on board the creator's point about individual controversies being notable. To date I've not seen anything to suggest that this particular set of controversies is notable, though I'd be surprised some weren't notable on their own. Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 20:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- TFOWR: Yes, if you add some clarification, that would be helpful. My understanding of the Coatrack policy is that an article violates that policy only if the list of items in the article was somehow devious or misleading or unrelated to the title. The intention of this article was to document the well-known canard "Jews Control Hollywood". The list of sources/items in this article do document the canard (granted in a fairly bulletized way that was not very readable). If you look at the other articles on other canards such as The Franklin Prophecy, they are written differently (and probably better): they are not just a list of examples or commentaries, but rather more of a scholarly analysis. But that suggests that this article should be re-worked rather than deleted, true? --Noleander (talk) 20:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hopefully my reply above clarifies? Shout if it doesn't. I'm not convinced you're correct about "...only if...devious or misleading" (and certainly I don't believe you set out to be devious or misleading, but I trust you'll put me straight if I'm wrong ;-) ) - articles can evolve to become coatracky, and I suspect many of the veteran commentators here see this article doing just that. I also have a concern about notability - are controversies - taken together - notable? I can certainly see that individual controversies may be. The Fr4anklin Forgery is notable, for example - but an article "controversies involving anti-semitic allegations against politicians" - possibly not so much. Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 20:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- It seems like the problems you've described could be solved by renaming the article to "The perceived prevalence of Jewish leadership in Hollywood" (rather than "controversies" which invites a list). The problems left in terms of attracting "coatracky" edits would seem rather similar to those faced by the Anti-Americanism and Antisemitism articles. It's an unfortunate risk, but we haven't historically avoided articles like that for those reasons. Equazcion (talk) 20:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- I think "Jewish leadership in Hollywood", or "Jews and Hollywood" (with a section on perception/controversy) would be better, to be honest. Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 21:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- I like that suggestion, because it opens the door for more positive information like how the Hollywood industry helped Southern California grow economically, and also how many Jews were treated unfairly in the 1950's blacklisting/McCarthyism episodes, and lots of other stuff that Neal Gabler describes. I suppose the article could be broadened and a new (small) subsection could be added to Antisemitic canards about "Jews Control Hollywood", cross-linking the two. --Noleander (talk) 21:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - As the nominator of this article, I feel some need to speak up a bit about the reasons why it was nominated. As I said in the original nomination, it appeared to have some significant sourcing issues as the article at that time mainly consisted of excerpts from other WP articles, and had the appearance of making significant claims of anti-semitism without properly sourcing or criticizing them. Of the sources listed, both the Haaertz and the Joel Stein columns appear to be somewhat satirical, and not as factual as other sources might be. Nowhere did I ever list WP:COATRACK as a reason for this AfD, and I don't believe that it applies here. As for Noleander's second question, I don't know. It should be noted that this AfD stemmed from an ANI entry where an accusation of anti-semitism was brought against a user and I brought the conversation over here so that the conversation would focus on the article instead of the user. Frmatt (talk) 18:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
-
- Frmatt: Thanks for replying. Your response is consistent with what I was perceiving in this AfD: (1) The article does not violate the Coatrack policy; and (2) No one has given a good reason why the "Canard: Jews Control Hollywood" topic is not notable. That said, I'd still like to hear from other "Delete"ers, to get more input to help us achieve consensus. --Noleander (talk) 18:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- It's a coatrack because, while ostensibly about Hollywood, it's really about Jews and fact-picking controversial incidents that involve Jews. No attempt is made to address non-Jewish controversies. No attempt is made to address non-controversial Jews. There is no article on Jews winning Nobel prizes out of statistical predictability, only one sentence at Jew. The Hollywood canard is less substantial, and much more difficult to source. HereToHelp (talk to me) 20:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- HereToHelp: I hear what you are saying, but I think that your perception is due to the inaccurate title of the article. The article is on the topic "Canard: Jews control hollywood". I thought that would be too offensive, so I made the title more gentle, and called it "Controversy over prevelance ..." which - on hindsight - was a big mistake, because it makes it look like the article is about the statistical aspect of one ethnicity in a particular vocation. Based on the title, I can see why you would ask "Why not include controversies about non-jews"? What do you think about the proposal, made above, to (instead of a full article) put a new subsection into the Antisemitic canard article? --Noleander (talk) 20:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete for reasons given in my reply to Noleander. HereToHelp (talk to me) 20:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
-
- HereToHelp, your objections fall under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. (Not saying that I am 100% happy with this article.) -- llywrch (talk) 21:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Compromise Proposal Having watched the conversation, I'm wondering if there is the possibility for a compromise here. User:Equazcion, User:TFOWR, and User:Noleander have made some good comments that lead to the possibility of a compromise. So, based on what they have said, here is the proposal (for the record, I have no idea if we can do this...but I'm going to ignore all rules and do it anyways!) 1) That the article be renamed either "Jewish Leadership in Hollywood" or "Jews and Hollywood" and its focus change according to the new title. 2) That a new section be inserted at Antisemitic canards about Jews and Hollywood with a crosslink to this article. 3) That if these are acceptable that this AfD be closed as "kept and renamed". Frmatt (talk) 21:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC) -
- No objection here, though I'm probably on the "keep"-side of the "don't keep" camp - more strident deletionists may disagree ;-) Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 21:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- For the record, I too support this solution. This would be a good application of IAR. I hope we don't get a lot of rules-sticklers crying about this being out-of-process. Equazcion (talk) 21:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- I concur with the compromise. I think it is a good middle ground. Although I'm not familiar with the AfD process, and I dont know whether it is "legal" to close it before 7 days have elapsed? Regardless, I would concur with the proposal. --Noleander (talk) 21:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Exactly what I was going to suggest. The current title was a mistake and the current article is more a content dump than a coherent article, but the canard of the Jews running Hollywood is definitely notable and Wikipedia should cover it. Fences&Windows 22:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
-
- Comment Sugar coating garbage, doesn't change the fact that it is still garbage...Modernist (talk) 22:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
-
- I should point out that, to add substance to an insubstantial quip, that the material in Antisemitic canards is largely from pro-Jewish or neutral (depending on you POV) sources, while the article we are discussing is a collection of antisemitic cooks/revealers of suppressed truth who wrote inflammatory books, which are quoted extensively and without counteracting POVs or evaluation. The problem is not the organization of the article; it's the content, stupid! As it stands, it is merely a place to vent antisemetic quotes.HereToHelp (talk to me) 22:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
-
- ...and that would likely continue if the current title were retained. It would be far harder to justify in an general article about "Jews and Hollywood", though. Slipping "sugar-coated garbage" into a small clear plastic bag is far harder than slipping it into a large brown paper bag ;-) Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 23:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- The proposal isn't merely to change the title, but the focus of the article too, ie. content. Equazcion (talk) 23:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Reply Hey Frmatt I appreciate your mediation in the discussion. However, my opinion on delete was based on Original Research. My feelings and personal opinion about Wikipedia is that my opinion is based on the premise that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. My understanding of an encyclopedia is a Reference work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or that it treats a particular branch of knowledge comprehensively. It is self-contained and explains subjects in greater detail than a dictionary with references and citations to other works that support the conclusion. With regards to this particular piece, I find that we have an individual, who has done a great job in researching - writing and referencing a piece but has come to their own conclusion. The article as it now stands could, (and maybe should be submitted to a journal for publication). However, Wikipedia is not a Journal - Scholarly peer review - or a publisher of Original material. We are a encyclopedia that forwards the findings of others, after it has been vented by 3rd party - verifiable - creditable and independent sources, and not a publication house for great, but unproven, thesis. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 23:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- You seem to be commenting on the article's present content, rather than on the proposal at the top of this section. Once again: The proposal is to change the content of the article, as well as its name. Hopefully the changes would make the article more in-line with Wikipedia's core principles, which you've so comprehensively described to us. Equazcion (talk) 23:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- My comment would than be rewrite and post, and see what happens. My opinion as to this article, under this discussion, has to be based on what this article is, and how it is written now. Not what it maybe under a new name - different references - different author or even possible different subject. Hope this helps explain my position. ShoesssS Talk 23:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
So you're basically not commenting one way or the other on this proposal, but rather re-casting your vote to delete the article; just to be clear. Equazcion (talk) 23:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Comment made in frustration, please disregard, apologies. Equazcion (talk) 23:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC) -
- PS: No apologies necessary. The question was not uncivil - derogatory or offense, just a question, that sorry to say, I responded to. So you now have to read my comment. Punishment enough, I believe. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 00:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- I’m sorry if I am sounding coy or trying to slip the question, but AFD is not the forum to discuss renaming - referencing - or rewriting an article. They are subjects that should have been explored on the discussion page of the piece itself, before it came here. I understand that sometimes a piece comes to this forum because of an editor nominating for deletion before trying to discuss the topic or researching a subject or just personal opinion on what should be included or should not be included on Wikipedia. However, in reading the piece, even if it was renamed - referenced - rewritten is still Original Research at this point. And again Wikipedia is not a publishing house - discussion forum - Journal or portal to express individual conclusions in a POV manner. Hopefully we convey the facts, the facts only, and lead a reader to investigate further to draw their own opinions. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 00:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
(Reset) I agree with Shoesss, although I want to acknowledge the good faith nature of this proposal. This article will be deleted, or kept, based on the merits of the arguments here. If it is kept, I sincerely hope that its most ardent supporters will take all of the criticisms as good faith comments, and use them, or at least many of them, as an agenda for improving the article. If the article is deleted, I have two comments worth making now (to provide a more thoughtful reply to Frmatt. First, Wikipedians consider it very bad form when an editor tries to recreate an article that was just deleted. If deleted, the future ;ies in other directions. Second, that said, it seems to me that much of this discussion has been very constructive. I hope that Noleander and Equazcion can see past disagreements about the application of different policies, to a geneal concern I hope we can all acknowledge is shared by everyone here to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. I do not mean to speak for others but I get the feeling that Noleander has given more thought to what her own intentions were and how she handled things, and has some ideas about how this could all have been handled differently. This is not a reproach. My advice is for Noleander (if the article is deleted) to take a couple of weeks off from thinking about this topic, and thn go through all the talk here to elicit the most constructive comments, to consider with an entirely open mind other ways that this material could be handled. I have some good faith suggestions. For one, Noleander has acknolwedged that she is not a historian but that the input of a historian or sociologist might be beneficial - i'd suggest going to the Wikiproject pages for these discipines and actively seeking collaborators. Then I would consider dividing all of the material that was in this article, or that other editors felt would be in an encyclopedic, NPOV article, and consider instead contributing to three other article: First an article on the history of Jews in America. Jews, like all ethnic groups, arrived with certain experiences and at a certain time in history that gave them certain opportunities while also creating certain challenges or limitations. That many Jews turned to commercial and artistic fields is not considered surprising by historians and sociologists, and for reasons that are far more nuanced that the views provided by some film critics, as they are based on real research about the ways immigrants adapt to a new home. Second, an article on the history of Hollyood. There is real scholarship written by historians of Hollywood - about how most Jewish actors had to change their names and pass as gentiles in order to be accepted by audiences; about the sympathy many Jews had for blacks, given similarities in their experience - all at the same time that other Jews discovered that they could find in Hollywood financial success denied to them in other more respected professions like law and medicine. There is a complex story here (that I am no expert on) and it deserves to be told, in the right article. Finally, the article on anti-Semitic canards could do with a new section on the one about Jews controling the media/Hollywood. There are scholars who research anti-Semitism, and usually their analysis shows what different trends in anti-Semitism reveal about anti-Semites, or about the time period in which a given canard is most popular. I would not be offended by an article rehashing such canards if it put them in the context of such scholarship. The main point driving all my comments is simple: Wikipedia is always a work in progress. Collaboration does not depend on one compromise, it depends on endless compromises. So I think that Frmatt's proposed compromise, while well-intended, is misplaced. Let us just watch this play out. There is nothing to fear in an AfD. If this article is deleted it does not stop Noleander from making valuable contributions to the project. Let's wait and see. If the article is not deleted you can bet lots of editors will want to see it revised along lines suggested here. But even if it is deleted, I already see three different articles Noleander could constructively contribute to. There is no reason for all this material to be in one single article, especially thanks to the space-age wonder of hypertext and links. Whatever problems I have with this article, if contributeions were made along the lines I propose to three other articles - contributions that grow out of Noleander's work - this would indeed be a better encyclopedia. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC) - No offense, but this just sounds like one big "no, we shouldn't IAR, we should follow the process instead, because it is the process." And I don't see any actual reason to do that. You've suggested we do the same thing as is proposed above, only wait longer to do it. What's the point of that? Equazcion (talk) 01:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- I agree Slrubenstein, and think that reading the history articles will give a good sense for what we are looking for. I am fine with the theory of a well-referenced section in the Canard article. However, the content that we have is unacceptable to display in any article. I know from experience that starting with anything is easier than a blank page. Such, I recommend usefying or sandboxing what we have, so committed editors can begin the (lengthy and involved) process of making it something usable.HereToHelp (talk to me) 01:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- I am feeling like there was perhaps some people who didn't fully read the options given above, so I'm going to copy and paste them here.
It seems like the problems you've described could be solved by renaming the article to "The perceived prevalence of Jewish leadership in Hollywood" (rather than "controversies" which invites a list). The problems left in terms of attracting "coatracky" edits would seem rather similar to those faced by the Anti-Americanism and Antisemitism articles. It's an unfortunate risk, but we haven't historically avoided articles like that for those reasons. Equazcion (talk) 20:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC) - I think "Jewish leadership in Hollywood", or "Jews and Hollywood" (with a section on perception/controversy) would be better, to be honest. Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 21:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
-
- I like that suggestion, because it opens the door for more positive information like how the Hollywood industry helped Southern California grow economically, and also how many Jews were treated unfairly in the 1950's blacklisting/McCarthyism episodes, and lots of other stuff that Neal Gabler describes. I suppose the article could be broadened and a new (small) subsection could be added to Antisemitic canards about "Jews Control Hollywood", cross-linking the two. --Noleander (talk) 21:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
These are the comments that I based my compromise proposal on, and I would hope that those who disagree would at least consider that what these three users have proposed (my proposal was a synthesis of what I read here). If the article is going to be re-created from scratch, then why not start with something instead of nothing. I would fully support the userfication of this page so that it can be re-worked, but if it has usable content in it, then lets do something to keep it so we don't lose the work that has been done already. I will be the first to admit that I don't like the content any more than anyone else (hence this AfD), but if a compromise can be worked out instead of a full-out deletion, then great, lets do that and work together in the spirit of what WP is at its best. As to some of the specific comments... - No, I did not try to work this out on the talk page before I nominated it as my involvement started with a thread over at WP:ANI. When I looked at the article, I saw that it had some serious issues (as mentioned in the nomination) and brought it here for further discussion (though I didn't expect it to be quite this lengthy!) I believed when I saw the article that it was worthy of deletion, however there are some points that have been made by many people that have made me believe that there is some notable information worth rescuing here. But, because my involvement with the article only began with the ANI post, then continued over here...no, I didn't take it up on the talk page as when I nominated it, I felt that it deserved to come here. Would I do it differently with the article as it stands now...maybe, but I would need a crystal ball to really know.
- My compromise was not brought here out of fear either that the AfD would succeed, or that it would fail. It was brought in an attempt to work in the communal spirit that Wikipedia espouses, to find a solution that is acceptable to the majority of people. I know that I cannot please all of the people, all of the time...I'm just trying to please most of the people this once.
- Yes, I am aware that AfD is not necessarily the place for this type of conversation...however it is where we are, and seemed to me to be the best place to propose this compromise so that the majority of people who had an interest in this topic could have as much input as possible.
- Finally, all of our edits fall under the category of original research. In choosing the sources that we do, in reading and interpreting things the ways that we do, in simply being the people that we are we are continually making choices about what to include and what not to include. Each individual edit qualifies as a piece of original research simply because we cannot escape our own personal biases. We can be aware of them, and try to counteract them, but we cannot ever escape them. This is why we run into point of view conflicts, because each of us sees the world and all of the information in it in the light of our experience, society, and knowledge. This AfD (for me at least) was never about original research, and more about a community conversation about the suitability of this article for WP. As with all things, I have seen new evidence which has changed my mind about the notability of this subject, and I am not too proud to say that. That is the wonderful thing about WP, while each of our individual edits may qualify as original research, ideally, each of our contributions will balance out somebody else's original research. In the end, we have a usable encyclopedia...or at least we hope so. Frmatt (talk) 02:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- There is no evidence that this proposed "Jews in Hollywood" article is remotely notable. As such, oppose this solution in search of a problem. The real problem (anti-semites using Wikipedia as a soapbox) is easily solvable. Hipocrite (talk) 05:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Curious who you think is an anti-semite, specifically? Equazcion (talk) 05:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
-
- No need for name calling. Let's focus on the encyclopedia, shall we? --Noleander (talk) 11:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Summary of data showing Notability - I get the feeling that this discussion is going around in circles. To help break out of the circle, perhaps we could try to focus more on cold, hard facts. To that end, here is a summary of the facts that support notability of the subject of this article (namely "Canard: Jews control Hollywood"):
-
- 1) Google shows 200,000 hits for the specific phrase "Jews Control Hollywood".
- 2) This canard is so well-known, that humorist Joel Stein wrote a column about it in the L. A. Times here.
- 3) The bigoted statement "Jews control Hollywood" has been made by many notable people, starting with Henry Ford in the 1920s, and continuing through the 1950s with many Christian organizations, and into the present day with many notable anti-zionists and anti-semites.
- 4) The following notable figures have published writings about the canard: Michael Medved, J. J. Goldberg, and Neal Gabler
- 5) There are hundreds and hundreds of commentaries on the canard, such as this one here by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting
- 6) The ADL has a "Special Report" dedicated to the canard here entitled "Alleged Jewish 'Control' of the American Motion Picture Industry"
- Perhaps it would help us achieve consensus if some "Delete"ers could address the above data and explain how, in light of that data, "Canard: Jews Control Hollywood" is not notable. Ditto for the claims that the article is "Original Research" or "Coatrack". (As for the claim "The article is written poorly", I have no counterargument for that :-) Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 11:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- First, let me say Welcome Noleander, though we disagree on this particular piece, your contributions are appreciated and welcomed. To address the issues brought up by both yourself and Frmatt let me start by addressing this particular article that is under discussion. Delete, for the reasons I have stated above: Original Research which I will not bore you with by reiterating again here. However, I will add on to my argument by stating that your comments did get me thinking and I started to investigate the contention from an academic standpoint and did some research on the topic in its current state. The first area I addressed was “Jews Control Hollywood” strictly through Scholarly works and came-up with 5 hits [[21]] not impressive or in my opinion notable. I tried a different search term; "Jewish Racism in Hollywood" and was rewarded with 3 hits, as shown here, [22]. Again, not impressive or in my opinion notable. Likewise, I looked at “Anti-Semitism in Hollywood” and was only able to find 1 Hit as provided here, [23]. Finally I went with "Jewish Racism in Hollywood" that provided only 3 hits, for your review here, [24]. In my opinion these findings supports my argument that the article as it is now written and labeled is non-notable and should be deleted. Now with regards to a different article that could include and incorporate some of your finds that are mentioned in the existing piece, I could and would support a piece along the lines “Jews in Hollywood”. There is a wealth of information, as shown here [25] covering that particular topic and would be a nice addition here at Wikipedia. In fact, I would gladly help in reference and citing the piece. ShoesssS Talk 14:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hmmm. That doesnt seem very persuasive. A couple of questions: (1) You use Google, but what about the other five data that are listed above? (I dont mean individually, I mean taken as a whole). (2) You are limiting Google to the "scholar" search. Is there a policy that says that only scholarly references may be used when determining notability? --Noleander (talk) 15:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Regarding a policy, with regards to what search engine we use or not, policy has no particular one that is required. That is left to the individual, and what they are comfortable with on relying on their argument to support claims of notability or arguments against. In my personal criteria, yes I limit my searches to Google Scholar and Google News. I also use several search engines that are typically not available without a fee, one of the perks that my job. On the other hand, I have found that just a plain old Google search can bring a proliferation of hits for subject matter, no matter if it is fringe sciences or actual hoaxes. The reason for my personal criteria, is that both Google Scholar and Google News are typically vented material, that has been peered reviewed, and typically accepted as researched, and though many may still be consider a hoax or placebo science, see Cold Fusion, is still a way to give credence to an argument for notability. Regarding the points above, I think I have addressed them to the point that any further explanation will only be redundant and will not further either of our points. Hope this helps explain where I am coming from. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 17:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Shoessss, you seem to misunderstand the restriction imposed by "no original research". It was intended to keep out content that presented novel conclusions, not original content which present conclusions already presented in popular or scholarly discussions, or are plausible to a reasonably-educated person. If all original content were banned from Wikipedia, most of our biographies would need to be deleted because they are about people for whom there is no expert article which covers her/his entire life. Further, no one is arguing that a widely-accepted belief that "Jews control Hollywood" does not exist; without counting votes, my impression is that the primary objection to this article is that the subject is not notable. This, indeed, may be the case if there is not enough second-party discussion of this belief to write a satisfactory article. -- llywrch (talk) 16:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hey llywrch, I hope you don’t mind, but I like to address your comments from the bottom up rather than from the beginning down. You know us Philly people always difficult and looking for an edge. Regarding secondary discussion for an article, I have no problem with that. But one of my requirements, and yes that is personal and not policy, is that the discussion be based on a Notable subject, be it a person, place or thing, and not based on original research. As I stated above , my premise is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. As an encyclopedia, we forward the findings of others, after it has been vented by 3rd party - verifiable - creditable and independent sources, and not a publication house for great, but unproven, thesis. As such, Wikipedia is not the forum for secondary discussions to establish notability for a subject, but rather the outlet to show that a subject has obtained notability status through coverage other than Wikipedia. That should have already been proven by coverage from outside sources before being placed here on Wikipedia. Our only responsibility, here at Wikipedia, is to discuss what references to use. Regarding the statement ; “…that a widely-accepted belief that Jews control Hollywood does not exist without counting votes” is exactly what I am arguing against. That whiffs of racism and anti-Semitism and is a problem that should not be expounded on further through any agenda, especially an encyclopedia. Does that mean that there is not a place here at Wikipedia to show that it may exist, no. In fact, with a piece that gives balanced information, supported by vented 3rd party - verifiable - creditable and independent sources, would gladly be welcomed by me. Finally to address the area of my misunderstanding the restrictions, that could be possible. An interpretation of guidelines and policies is always a personal analysis. Sorry to say, that is why we have lawyers. As such, I express my reading of the policies and guideline be they right or be they wrong. That is why we have an individual with a few more brain cells than me to judge consensus, and consensus is how the policies and guidelines are imposed. Thanks for listening. ShoesssS Talk 18:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- I do not object to notability. The notion is common colloquially, even if scholars may shy away from it. I object to the naming of the article (a section in Canard is quite enough) and I predominantly object to the quality of the article, which I do not think is in dispute. I reiterate: sandbox it, demonstrate that a quality section can be written, and then introduce it to Canard. HereToHelp (talk to me) 19:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I see two camps: One of userfying the article, and one for fixing it while in mainspace. I think everyone knows which side I'm on. However, frankly, neither side is giving any reasons why theirs is the more appropriate solution. My take is this: In order to say userfying is the better solution, there would have to be some sort of significant doubt as to whether the article, through a rename and edit as described above, can be made into something encyclopedic. There are still a couple of days until the closing of this discussion would normally occur, and I predict an even later close due to the enormity of this discussion. Those interested might as well start trying to fix the article now, rather than blabbing with predictions of how possible or impossible it might be. This includes a rename, which according to WP:AFD is allowed, as long as the AFD participants are properly notified. This way, when the discussion is nearing closing, the article will at least contain as much evidence as possible of whether or not it can be rescued, and both the closing admin and perhaps the delete voters here (provided they're not just being stubborn) might be swayed to keep the article in mainspace. I'm going to be bold and move the article now to one of the proposed names, which the supporters of this proposal should obviously not object to, and the opposers shouldn't object to either because they want the article deleted anyway. I pity the poor admin who has to read all this. Poor, poor admin... Equazcion (talk) 19:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC) -
-
- I made some changes to the article, in conformance with this suggestion from User:Equazcion above. Primarily, I've added some stubbed sections for topics like "Reluctance to put Jewish themes in movies", "Blacklisting (as it impacted Jews)", and "Jewish actors hiding jewishness (name changes, etc)". If this AfD endorses the article, I'll be happy to help add more detail to the article. But with the prospect of deletion, I'm reluctant to spend much time adding detailed text ... until the AfD is closed one way or another (tho I encourage others to do so :-) --Noleander (talk) 21:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- merege WP:INCUBATE or userfy I see the beginning, the very early beginning of a good article here. Ikip (talk) 20:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- If you are refering to the version of the article at the moment you made your comment, you should know that it is in the middle of being transformed to follow a proposal (above) to broaden the article (from focusing just on the "Jews Control Hollywood" to "Jews and Hollywood"). So it is very skeletal at the moment. Assuming that consensus supports that direction, it could easily take another 2 or 3 weeks for the article to get fleshed out. --Noleander (talk) 21:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- "In order to say userfying is the better solution, there would have to be some sort of significant doubt as to whether the article [...] can be made into something encyclopedic." I respectfully disagree. The possibility of improvement is the threshold of incubation. The actual current state of the article is the threshold for inclusion in the main namespace. Currently, we have the former but not the latter.HereToHelp (talk to me) 21:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- In my experience, if a topic is found to be notable and has potential, it's generally kept. The present state of its content is secondary. Sometimes articles are found to be in such horrible state that a "blank slate" is needed, but generally, notability and potential alone have been reasons to keep. Equazcion (talk) 21:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep – Based on the name change and the editing now being performed on the piece. As the adage expresses “…all good things to those who Persevere”. ShoesssS Talk 21:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment. Attempts to claim that "Jews and Hollywood" is not a significant topic seem well-meaning but disingenous. Please remember that Wikipiedia is not censored, and just because anti-semites may have waxed lyrical about Zionist control of the media, if not the world, that doesn't mean we should sweep the topic under the carpet. Ikip's suggestion to WP:INCUBATE is a good one. Fences&Windows 21:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per arguments above. Also note how the section Jews_and_Hollywood#Michael_Medved is taken point blank from a posting on Stormfront - [26]. All Hallow's (talk) 21:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- Comment - The particular statement is referenced - placed in quotation marks and is attributed to the individual that made the remark. It highlights a fastidious thought process that would lose it’s effect if it was rephrased to protect plagiarism concerns. Though we may not agree with the thought process of the individual making the remarks, the way it is presented in Wikipedia, does not constitute reasons to delete. The way to address the situation, is to address the remarks with a brief statement, that is also referenced, stating a contrasting view. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 23:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- The point wasn't Medved's quotes; rather, it was that sentences like "The article then describes how the Jew Michael Eisner, the Head of Walt Disney studios only hires..." or "He adds that even studios which were bought out by the Japanese Sony Corp. and by the Australian Jew Rupert Murdoch" were copied directly from the Stormfront posting about Medved. All Hallow's (talk) 00:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- I created that section that summarizes Medved's article "Jews Run Hollywood" from Moment magazine. That summary of his article contains some inflammatory text between the quotes, and I apologize for cutting-and-pasting it without proofreading. That body of text is online at many websites, including RadioIslam and many others. I dont have a clue who assembled the quotes originally. I dont recall where I obtained the text from, but it would not be Stormfront, since I dont consider that a reliable source. In any case, I have trimmed down the section to be much smaller and neutral. --Noleander (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep important article that explain how the jew have unproportion number and control of the hollywood and the news. Ani medjool (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC).
- Sigh. Ani, I think you may want to keep such thoughts to yourself. This is not and should not be an article that aims to "expose Zionist control" or similar 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion'-esque theorising. Fences&Windows 01:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
[edit] An alternative compromise - Merge with American Jews Information about American Jews as they have influenced particular fields seems to me to belong in the article American Jews. Jews are well represented in other fields besides the entertainment industry, without corresponding articles that I could find. The usual way of describing their contributions is a list of individual people, not an article. The article "American Jews" has only a rudimentary description of how "many of the early Hollywood moguls and pioneers were Jewish" (to quote from that article). IMO the apparently large number of people who want to read about Jews in Hollywood should be redirected from this article's page to the article "American Jews." Any relevant and appropriate content in this article and related articles could be merged with that article (or other articles, as per the aforementioned suggestions). The section of "American Jews" about the Jews in the entertainment industry ("Jews in popular culture") still does not have a lot of information. --AFriedman (talk) 00:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
-
- I don't think I could support this compromise as American Jews is already 84 kilobytes and has a nifty little note at the top about splitting it. This article as it is being outlined at Jews and Hollywood does have some notability and should be kept as a separate article. (Just for the record, this AfD is now 97 kilobytes long!) Frmatt (talk) 01:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- I was going to support a merge, but good point. It should be summarised in that article though. Fences&Windows 01:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yup, forgot to mention that a section should be added with a link to Jews and Hollywood. Frmatt (talk) 01:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- In defense of merging the information in this article, articles about complicated and important subjects are, necessarily, very long. The article about American Jews is only B-class and covers a very large topic that has been rated "high-importance" on both WikiProject United States and WikiProject Ethnic Groups. For comparison, several articles about U.S. cities with populations of roughly 100,000-250,000, such as Albany, New York, Richmond, Virginia and New Haven, Connecticut are of comparable or greater length and no one is complaining, despite the notes about their size. I myself have seen and helped with the development of new sections that increased the length of the Albany article. In my opinion, "American Jews" is a more important article based on this being a demographic group that numbers in the millions. Not all the information in the American Jews article is essential--a more detailed section about Jewish people in the entertainment industry is probably more important than the large part of that article about Jewish populations by U.S. county, which seems a bit arbitrarily chosen and could easily be condensed or moved. --AFriedman (talk) 02:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
-
- I concur with AFriedman that articles on key issues can be unusually long. However, Im not sure American Jews is the right article, because the primary "new" topic in this article is about the antisemtic canard "Jews Control Hollywood". Other articles that are more relevant are either Antisemitic canard or Cinema of the United States. It is true that this article, as written now, was broadened recently to be "Jews and Hollywood", but if that proposal is adopted, then this article should/would get rather large (lots of sub-sections could get created someday) and it probably would end up as its own article someday. --Noleander (talk) 11:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Merge media bias claims into other articles. Break up this article into several topics. I think there is an attempt to cover several topics with this article. I don't feel I have studied some of the issues enough to know how to cover some aspects of this article in Wikipedia. For example; "Control" is a very controversial term. But media bias and lobbying are covered by several articles. Biases are common. Most people in the media and lobbying groups have some kind of bias. Some people are better than others at putting aside their biases and covering issues objectively. Same as at Wikipedia. Wikipedia could be claimed to be part of the mass media at this point. Covering religion and religious issues in the media and Wikipedia is difficult. All kinds of pressures, lobbying, spin, politics, and calculation are involved. Critical viewpoints of religion and religious influence and must be covered in a careful, balanced WP:NPOV way to avoid problems. Some articles and article sections that are relevant in various ways follow below. Some could incorporate some of the info directly. Some are examples of Wikipedia coverage of various forms of claimed media biases, religious lobbying, and the intermixing of media, religion and politics.
- - Media bias#Vis-a-vis religious issues
- - Pat Robertson, 700 Club, Category:Left Behind series, Christian Zionism.
- - Israel lobby in the United States, Arab lobby in the United States, Pallywood.
- - Clear Channel, Air America Media, Right-wing radio (redirects to Conservatism#Radio).
- - Echo chamber (media), Vast right-wing conspiracy, Liberal media (redirects to Media bias).
- - Christian right, Christian left, Jewish lobby, Ethnic interest group.
- - Spin (public relations), Interest group, Campus Watch, CAMERA Israeli lobby campaign in Wikipedia
- - Media manipulation, Framing (social sciences), Fear mongering.
- - Smear campaign, Foreign policy interest group, Attack ad.
- - The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, Managing the news, Gatekeeping (communication).
- All the various religious population groups spend large amounts of money and time (both as individuals and as members of organizations and viewing audiences) to influence mass media coverage of religious issues, and/or to become alternative mass media themselves. I am talking about news media, movies, books, web sites, and all forms of communication. Religious influence and bias in the various media is huge and ongoing. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Fun fact: This discussion is now 101KB long. Equazcion (talk) 05:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Now that this had been moved to Jews and Hollywood I will vote keep in expectation of there being plenty of opportunity to create an encyclopedic article. The original version had clear problems relating to WP:Weight as it had large chunks of quotations, often from bigots, followed by brief comments stating that the ADL didn't like what was said.
- Later: It has since emerged that the much of the article was originally sourced as a copy vio from Stormfront [27] and other bigoted sites that copied their material. I now think thaa it may be better to delete and start again with current article name.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- To clarify:
-
- No, there was no text taken from Stormfront, it was taken from RadioIslam here. Repeating a false fact does not make it true.
- Copyright violation? No. The quotes are from a Michael Medved article in "Moment" magazine, and a handful of quotes are not a violation.
- "Much of the article"? No, the text that was improperly cut-and-pasted (by me) was the "Michael Medved" subsection. That is a small fraction of the original article (although, now that the article has been severly pruned, it is a larger portion).
- Start over? Maybe. But the offending text has been removed already, so starting over may end up where the article is now. --Noleander (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Why would taking the material from Radio Islam be any better than taking it from Stormfront? Or, for that matter, why would taking material from the Institute for Historical Review be appropriate? Also, did you actually read the sources you cite in the article, like Moment magazine? Jayjg (talk) 01:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Aggregating a bunch of cranks in one place still makes them cranks. The article's tone is incredibly biased. Lots of undue weight given to extremist positions. --Bachrach44 (talk) 18:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Bacharach44: Could you please give some examples of the "extremist positions" in the article? There used to be a few quotes from Henry Ford and Louis Farrakan, but those have been removed in the latest version of the article. The remaining text in the "Canard" section is rather neutral and mild, and includes quotes from commentators like Michael Medved and J. J. Goldberg (both of whom, I believe, are Jewish). Could you give a couple of examples of the "bunch of cranks" and "extremist positions"? --Noleander (talk) 18:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete This could not sustain a neutral and objective article, and gives undue weight to fringe theories. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 23:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- 84.92.117.93 - Could you help by being a bit more specific, please? The canard "Jews Control Hollywood" is very notable, dating back to Henry Ford, and is the subject of many, many notable commentators (see the article for details). Is the canard what you are suggesting is fringe? How does it compare to other canards like Kosher Tax or The Franklin Prophecy (which do have articles in this encyclopedia) as far as notability? --Noleander (talk) 23:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm saying it's not of encyclopedic notability - I highly doubt you would get an article devoted to this subject is any mainstream encyclopia, or a similar publication. I'm sure it's notable within the far-right online community, but featuring it here gives undue prominance to a fringe concept; maybe a better option would be to mention the slur in a few lines on the Antisemitism article, a more appropriate depth of coverage. As for your mention of other articles, I don't see how they affect this debate - see WP:OTHERSTUFF. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 19:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- I am appalled at the political censorship expressed or implied in some of the above comments. I agree that some of the detail and specific content in this article might go elsewhere, but just as we write articles on individual cranks, we write articles on their collective activities as well. We write articles on the most terrible of ideas and their advocates. We write articles on both racial persecution, and racial domination. Anti-semitism is not a taboo topic, and neither are the roles of Jews in various activities, whatever their nature. We can write on Jewish views of Black people, and vice versa--regardless of the degree to which they are well or ill founded. We present the views as they are reliably reported, and we also set them in context by discussing the variation in those views and the opposition to those views . That Jews may have dominated the film industry in the US is not a subject too sensitive to be discussed frankly. There is no subject whatsoever too sensitive to be discussed fairly on Wikipedia. An accurate report of what people have thought,s aid and did, is something we can report on, but we must not censor our articles so they have a "correct" political tendency, nor may we censor our titles. Political or social consequences of telling things factually are irrelevant here: those who wish to write with a political purpose should do so elsewhere. The tone of the article & its title did not quite succeed in attaining NPOV, but that is correctable, and there is no valid criticism of it otherwise. The topic is sufficiently notable by our usual criteria to justify an article--there are excellent published sources from a variety of viewpoints. I think "Jews in Hollywood" is far too much of a dilution, far too much of a merge with other aspects of the general subject--it is only acceptable if our devotion to NPOV and NOT CENSORED is so diluted also, that there is no possibility of saving as a distinct article on the specific subject. DGG' ( talk ) 23:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- My problem is not of inclusion/notability; my problem is placement and quality. NPOV means tempering information about cranks with information from scholarly sources of all points of views. The censorship was of pro-Jewish views, and of satsistics, and of basically anyone who hadn't written an antisemitic text. Let me reiterate: fix it, prove that it can be done, before you request to put this is somewhere.HereToHelp (talk to me) 00:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- ...if your argument isn't of inclusion, then your argument is not for Afd. So of course, your argument is of inclusion. You want the article deleted. I think I'm starting to understand the harsh response this article has gotten. The censorship as you call it is necessary because the article only lends itself to incidence of negative comments against Jews, and therefore, being an article with only the potential to be full of reports of negativity, it shouldn't be in the encyclopedia. That's very interesting. I'll probably be back to address this more fully. Equazcion (talk) 00:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
The meat of the article, as currently titled, is missing and is not the issue of Jewish control over Hollywood. It is the contributions made by specific Jewish people in Hollywood, as individuals and as part of groups. These are the facts that the people who would like to make value judgments should be able to read. I support the information about the accusations being moved to Antisemitic canards and articles about the accusers, and more detail about the individual people and their influence being added to the very rudimentary section about the topic in American Jews. --AFriedman (talk) 00:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC) - The people who want to read about the contributions of individuals will go to the articles on them, which we have. The people who want to read about the accusation (or perhaps the boast) that Jewish people controlled or controlled Hollywood will come to a general article on the topic. DGG ( talk ) 19:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree. The contributions of individual Jews are indeed relevant to the antisemitic accusations about them, and hard evidence that they unfairly excluded other people really does belong on their pages. To give another example, the fact that Oxford University only admitted Anglicans at one time also belongs on its page. Furthermore, people who want to read about "Jews in Hollywood" may well be looking for biographical information about people like Steven Spielberg, not antisemitic canards. --AFriedman (talk) 20:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per Slrubenstein, Blargh29, Mercurywoodrose etc., and particularly per Ani medjool. Also per Peter Cohen's "fruit of the poisonous tree" argument. Jayjg (talk) 01:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- in other words, if it reports on or quotes or is derived from anti-Semitic sources, we don't include it? How can we write on anti-Semitism without doing that? DGG ( talk ) 19:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well, those are "other words" all right: words unrelated to my !vote. Are you certain you meant to respond to me? Jayjg (talk) 21:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment. Ignoring the antisemitic filth out there produced by the Christian Right, Radical Islam, and White Power organisations, I've picked out sources that specifically discuss the issue of "Jews and Hollywood". I hope they will be enough to make plain that this is a notable and coherent topic that is not merely the preserve of bigots, though they will need to be discussed. [28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58] Fences&Windows 02:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Which is great, but they're useless until incorporated into an article. Where to put content is a small matter compared to having the content. I want to see the article first.HereToHelp (talk to me) 03:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- I take the time and effort to find sources and you say they're useless? Give me a break. There's an argument for deletion stated above several times that says that sources don't exist to support the topic - well, they do. Demonstrating the existence of good sources is enough to keep an article, as it shows the potential to produce an article of adequate quality. I'm not about to start work on an article like this that can be deleted on the whim of a closing admin who buys the DELETEASITMIGHTBEANTISEMITIC argument. Fences&Windows 18:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- I've just given Fences&Windows a "Working Man's Barnstar" for finding all these references. Let's make sure we at least look at them when we try and change the article. --AFriedman (talk) 06:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. OR, essay, coatrack, bizarre. Anything legitimate could be merged into one of the articles on Hollywood. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 04:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Weak Keep Article has changed a lot from the one that was initially nominated. The sources now appear to be reliable, to discuss a subject of definite notability, and to do so in an encyclopedic way with a real effort at narrative voice and pattern. The coatrack nature of the antisemitic canard section has almost disappeared. By its nature, it's going to be one of those articles that needs careful watching to preserve neutrality, but we don't shy away from those. This keep is only weak because of the article's checkered origin, and I'm unsure whether the earlier contributions are worth preserving in the history. RayTalk 04:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete As per Slr, SV, et al. Statements that anything can be discussed on WP miss the point. It would be possible to write a similar factual and sourced article Transsexuals in academia. It would be an exercise in bad taste. That said, I could imagine an excellent article on Women in mathematics, which would not cause offense and would be helpful: Association for Women in Mathematics already exists and there is a [[Category:Women mathematicians]]. Mathsci (talk) 14:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Avoiding the distasteful being so very crucial to writing a proper encyclopedia. Equazcion (talk) 16:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Avoiding bad taste is just another way of applying censorship. Were all the Jewish people who discussed the topic of Jews and Hollywood in the sources I linked to above like Rachel Weisz and Joel Klein writing in bad taste too? Fences&Windows 18:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- (ec) The word is offensive, not distasteful. We do not yet have a BLP for the fellow in astrophysics at the only remaining women's college in the University of Cambridge and I know that she would not wish for one: her life is complicated enough as it is. These real life concerns are not that hard to understand. There are plenty of encyclopedic articles waiting to be written on wikipedia that require considerable intellectual effort and skill; they are quite different from the article under discussion, which is little more than glorified gossip. Wikipedia is there to inform and educate, not to shock and offend. Mathsci (talk) 18:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Can we ignore the strawman of your acquaintance at Cambridge? Please distinguish between the current state of the article and the topic in general. The article was and still is a poor article, and the choice of sourcing and the original title was disastrous. In contrast, the topic of "Jews and Hollywood" is notable and can be written from balanced reliable sources without being offensive, clumsy, racist or titillating. See above for the sources I found. I'm not going to rewrite it right now as I don't particularly enjoy editing under extreme siege conditions and with a high likelihood of my work being deleted. Fences&Windows 22:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Strawman? This is a real person, Rachel Padman. I don't know her personally, but I'm familiar with her personal story. As for the article under discussion, it seems little more than gossip and it's hard to imagine it could go much beyond that - not what I expect to see in an encyclopedia. As I've written already there are plenty of properly encyclopedic articles out there to edit. Mathsci (talk) 05:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete as per Slr, Peter Cohen. A coatrack, a would-be magnet for bigots, and failing everything else, just not suitable for Wikipedia, any more than an article titled "Blacks and gang violence" would be. Auntie E. 17:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- What about Race and crime in the United States? Fences&Windows 22:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- There are a lot of articles that should not exist. Notice that the one you mentioned has a point of view tag which will probably remain until it is deleted. Do you think articles that are tagged POV are of real value to readers? The Four Deuces (talk) 22:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- That's actually a bad example, I think, since no specific race is mentioned there as the scope of the article. If you deleted race and crime in America you'd have to delete a whole lot of other subjects that scholars have written about. Let's not go nuts; touchy subjects still get coverage, and even most of the people calling this article antisemitic aren't in favor of going that far. Equazcion (talk) 22:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- And, it's easy to tag an article POV. You don't necessarily need a good reason, and even if there is one, it's usually a temporary content issue. If the article was by definition only within the scope of a POV, it wouldn't be tagged, it would be up for deletion. Equazcion (talk) 22:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - an accpetable article on this topic may well be possible, this is not it. Nor do I think an acceptable article could grow out of what is currently on the page without it being so fundamentally rewirtten that a redlink would be a better starting point than the current content. Despite the changes the article is still an unbalanced coatrack and I do not think that can be changed through normal editing. With this kind of article the neutral point of view must be present from the start not something crowbarred in as the article develops. Guest9999 (talk) 05:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if I would go that far, but I agree that it is unacceptable in its current form. If someone wants to try writing it from the ground up in a sandbox, they are welcome to. HereToHelp (talk to me) 00:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- I don't understand -- You wouldn't go as far as to say the article can't be adequately improved via normal editing? Could you clarify? Equazcion (talk) 00:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- As I understand it, Guest9999 does not think that the content we currently have is useful at all and prefers to start from scratch. I think that the existing content is useful but needs to be taken down and sandboxed until it is more neutral. In that sense, no, I do not think "normal" editing is sufficient, but I wouldn't go as far as saying what we have is worthless either, as guest9999 does. HereToHelp (talk to me) 01:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- If it can be adequately improved so as to belong in main space, what's the harm in keeping it there until that then, perhaps with a POV tag and any other appropriate maintenance tags? Isn't that how articles are normally brought up to snuff? Equazcion (talk) 03:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- No, it is better to let it go. If someone wants to write a real article, as opposed to the article you are defending, then let us wait until they do so. You have not offered to write a proper article, no one else has and there is no reason to keep a title for an unwritten article. I cannot believe you are defending an article that was written as an attack upon Jews. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well I don't believe it to actually be an attack on Jews. If I did, I wouldn't be defending it. I'm actually not even defending it though; I'm just trying to understand HereToHelp's delete rationale. Usually an article has to lack the potential to be a valid article in order to be deleted; He's saying it has potential and should still be deleted. Equazcion (talk) 04:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Why not just merge the responsibly sourced sections with other articles and redirect the page elsewhere? That might be a faster way to truly address questions of neutrality, as well as one that is more convenient for readers. Merging is also a standard way to bring information up to snuff. I've made an argument on another page that this article really covers a small part of a much larger topic--the Hollywood canard, if this is indeed the main subject of the article, is only one subcategory of the accusation that a Jewish cabal runs the world. There are similar ideas about Jews in science--that Jews dominate it--and Jews in Washington D.C.--that Jews control the U.S. government. Neither "Jews in science" nor "Jews in Washington D.C.," possible counterparts of this article, exist as articles on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is really for its readers, who need to be able to navigate the encyclopedia as easily as possible. IMO the relevant materials are best covered by other articles, to direct Wikipedia's readership to the topic in its broader context. The larger topic has a rich and fascinating history and the information may be better read and edited when added to a highly viewed article, than it could ever hope to be in a more obscure article such as this. Noleander has even agreed to merge this article with others. --AFriedman (talk) 04:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete And redirect, merge anything worthwhile to other articles prior to the deletion. Hobartimus (talk) 04:42, 26 October 2009 (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.
|
