Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antisemitic canard
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 10:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Antisemitic canard
WP:OR and/or WP:NEO... other than Wikipedia, there are only a few sources which actually use this term, and they're mostly blogs and such. In any case, there are no sources that are particularly about this phraseology. This leads me to believe that it's not just OR, but a neologism as well. The article has been sitting here for about 2 months without a single cite despite being tagged as requiring such. Recommend delete. .V. [Talk|Email] 15:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - I added a couple of refs. Of course it is a stub in need of improvement, but there is is no valid reason to delete. See Talk:Zionist Occupation Government/Archive 1#Anti-Semetic Canard Cat and Talk:Zionist Occupation Government/Archive 2 for background of this nomination. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment: WP:NEO: "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term." The sources you've provided use the term but are not about the term. Are there any sources you have that could justify the keeping of this neologism in the encyclopedia? .V. [Talk|Email] 00:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Neither antisemitism, nor canard, nor Antisemitic canard are neologisms. The falsehoods intentionally inciting hatred and violence against Jews appeared millennia ago, and never really disappeared. Evidence can be presented that medieval blood libels, the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, allegations of ritual murders, deicide, ZOG, Jewish Bolshevism, etc. are still actively promoted by some groups. This has nothing to do with WP:NEO. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Even if "antisemitic canard" was not a neologism, the article still amounts to a definition and should be transwikied to Wikitionary. .V. [Talk|Email] 02:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Not a neologism, not a dicdef, and there is no valid reason to delete. ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- I'm not quite sure what the rationale is for not calling this a neologism. Just because "antisemitism" and "canard" aren't neologisms doesn't mean that if you combine them the resulting term isn't a neologism either. "Antisemitic canard" is not a widely-used term. Without Wikipedia, there are only about 300 sites on the web that use this term, with multiples of the same site and wiki mirrors. There's not a single article that discusses "antisemitic canards" specifically, which WP:NEO requires. It's pretty clearly a neologism. .V. [Talk|Email] 04:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Google search for the term Muhammad after the conquest of Mecca gives exactly 16 results, including WP and its mirrors. By your logic, it must be a NEO as well. ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, a notable topic. Sources have been added and we don't delete articles just because they are stubs. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 00:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - argue all you want, but this is a neologism with virtually no mainstream usage. Everything this article is already covered at - very - great length in the assorted links from the {{AS}} template, and I see no use in keeping this content fork up. Incidentally the creator of this article has been blocked for sockpuppetry so expect some SPAs to offer words of advice in this discussion - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- If the topics are systematized in the template, then surely we should have an article describing their history, usage, trends, etc. I don't see how WP:NEO applies here. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I think this is an article about the subject, rather than the term. Then there only need be sources about the subject--and there are-- and the article can be moved to a more appropriate titles if necessary, which does not require AfD. DGG 04:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge into the main antisemitism article. We have way too many forks of that article. Crotalus 08:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- That would be lovely, but unfortunately impractical, because the article Antisemitism has to cover a massive amount of material and a lot of it is being spun off, rather than merged in. I don't know of any of its POV forks, could you please give examples? Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. -- ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep It is a widely-used term, and there are hundreds of Google hits. Check "Anti-semitic canard" as well.--Runcorn 13:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Very notable--Sefringle 18:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep because of its own importance and because this is the lead article for Category:Antisemitic canards. The category came under attack a few times, see: (1) Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 12#Category:Anti-Semitic canards and (2) Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 6#Category:Antisemitic canards but the consensus was to keep the category. So it makes no sense to keep the category, that contains multiple examples of antisemitc canards, but "delete" its main lead article. IZAK 09:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: For the keep votes that assert notability, could you link me to an article that discusses the term itself and not just employs the term? Such an article would be required for this to fit under WP:NEO, and I haven't seen one yet. .V. [Talk|Email] 15:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- A number of books and articles describe Antisemitic canards/ Antisemitic hoaxes/ Antisemitic myths/ Antisemitic legends, etc. . ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think what V's saying (correct me if I'm wrong) is, are there any writings about the term rather than just using it - iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Here's another "term": Muhammad after the conquest of Mecca. Please be so kind as to show us "writings about the term rather than just using it". There are thousands of WP articles like that. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Or how about Scandinavian folklore or Legends of Africa? It's not unusual for article topics to have descriptive titles that aren't necessarily coined terms. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 21:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- The article is laid out exactly like one for a term. It gives a definition, provides a quote in context, and then goes to synthesize material without any kind of sources. Furthermore, if it was not just a term, then why not use the more simpler name "antisemitic conspiracy theories"?
- Imagine trying to source this article. With Scandinavian folklore, all you'd need to do is cite the particular story as being a part of folklore. With this article, you need to cite it as an "antisemitic canard." Anything other than that, and it's original research. And then it would be clear that this article is just a term. I do have a question for you: Couldn't the logic you're using be applied to any neologism? After all, a neologism is a term which defines/reorders existing ideas. .V. [Talk|Email] 23:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Scholarly sources currently cited in the article mention the term "Antisemitic canard" 5 times. If you still insist this is WP:NEO, I challenge you to deal with Muhammad after the conquest of Mecca and thousands upon thousands of WP articles first. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- A neologism has to be "used widely". 5 instances does not imply wide usage. Not to mention the still non-existent article about the term, not just one that uses the term (which must exist, or else it's a neologism.) .V. [Talk|Email] 01:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm assuming you're not purposely being obtuse. He said there are currently five cites in the article specifically using the term, he didn't say only five references exist. In fact, doing a book text search at Amazon.com brings up 82 books that use the particular term "antisemitic canard" or "anti-semitic canard" and these are just from the limited set of books that happen to have searchable text. Doing a text search in Google Books brings up 503 books. It's hardly a neologism if there are at least over 500 published books that have used that specific terminology, and in any case, the article isn't about the specific term. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 09:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- No need to get insulting here. Are any of the sources you found about the term, not just using the term? Because if none exist... .V. [Talk|Email] 16:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Not insulting at all, as I indicated, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. I haven't looked at the text of all 500 books, but I doubt the "term" would be addressed since there's nothing inherently novel about it to be discussed, it simply describes a specific subdivision of canards, myths, stories, (pick your term). Neither would any of its other incarnations likely be discussed ("antisemitic myths", "...stories", "...") any more than the term "Pueblo Indian folk stories" would need some special treatment. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 17:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Exactly. It's "specific", it's not general like "Pueblo Indian Folk Stories." That's why it's a neologism. .V. [Talk|Email] 17:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- How is "Pueblo Indian folk stories" more general than "Antisemitic canards"? Both describe a particular division of stories. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 17:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- The use of the word "canard" implies that it's a distinct term because it's not the most simple way to express the idea. "Pueblo Indian folk stories" is the easiest way to say that, while in this case, "Antisemitic myths" would be the simplest way. There would be no problem if the article was named "antisemitic myths" instead of "antisemitic canards." .V. [Talk|Email] 17:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- If your only beef is with the article title, not the content, then by all means suggest/vote to rename instead of nominating the article for deletion. Plentiful examples of both terms "antisemitic canard" and "antisemitic myth" abound. On what basis do you prefer "myth" over "canard" since they are nearly equivalent? --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 18:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- It's because the current article is about a term called "antisemitic canard". The format, including the quote(s) that sets the definition, is done exactly as it would be for a specific term. The article would need a re-write in order to comply with a different, more generic title. .V. [Talk|Email] 18:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- That's not an answer to my question, why "myth" instead of "canard"? Perhaps the word "canard" is just unfamiliar to you? It's not a new word, it's been in the English language for over 120 years according to etymological sources. One of its most common uses is in reference to antisemtism. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 18:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't answer it because it's already been covered. The article is set up like an article about a neologism. As it stands, the article is a neologism and is not fit for inclusion in Wikipedia. .V. [Talk|Email] 19:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, there's no point in continuing to go around in circles with you. The article is set up no differently than any other article, and merely gives a brief introduction of what the article is about. Your flawed logic is unconvincing. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 19:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Consider this: to avoid original research, to include something into the Scandinavian folklore article, an editor would have to show that it's a piece of Scandinavian folklore. To include an antisemitic canard in here, there'd need to be a source saying it's an antisemitic canard. You might say, "But what if it's a hoax story that's antisemitic?" Well, at that point, the classification is made by the editor and not the source: which is OR. As you can see, the logic of this being just a generality breaks down.
- It's funny you mention going around in circles. Don't you recall claiming that the term "antisemitic canards" is widely used? So what is it, a term that's widely used or a general description like Legends of Africa? If it's both, wouldn't that make this is a specific title and thus a neologism under WP:NEO? It seems as if it would. .V. [Talk|Email] 20:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, there's no point in continuing to go around in circles with you. The article is set up no differently than any other article, and merely gives a brief introduction of what the article is about. Your flawed logic is unconvincing. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 19:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't answer it because it's already been covered. The article is set up like an article about a neologism. As it stands, the article is a neologism and is not fit for inclusion in Wikipedia. .V. [Talk|Email] 19:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- That's not an answer to my question, why "myth" instead of "canard"? Perhaps the word "canard" is just unfamiliar to you? It's not a new word, it's been in the English language for over 120 years according to etymological sources. One of its most common uses is in reference to antisemtism. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 18:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- It's because the current article is about a term called "antisemitic canard". The format, including the quote(s) that sets the definition, is done exactly as it would be for a specific term. The article would need a re-write in order to comply with a different, more generic title. .V. [Talk|Email] 18:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- If your only beef is with the article title, not the content, then by all means suggest/vote to rename instead of nominating the article for deletion. Plentiful examples of both terms "antisemitic canard" and "antisemitic myth" abound. On what basis do you prefer "myth" over "canard" since they are nearly equivalent? --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 18:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- The use of the word "canard" implies that it's a distinct term because it's not the most simple way to express the idea. "Pueblo Indian folk stories" is the easiest way to say that, while in this case, "Antisemitic myths" would be the simplest way. There would be no problem if the article was named "antisemitic myths" instead of "antisemitic canards." .V. [Talk|Email] 17:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- How is "Pueblo Indian folk stories" more general than "Antisemitic canards"? Both describe a particular division of stories. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 17:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Exactly. It's "specific", it's not general like "Pueblo Indian Folk Stories." That's why it's a neologism. .V. [Talk|Email] 17:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Not insulting at all, as I indicated, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. I haven't looked at the text of all 500 books, but I doubt the "term" would be addressed since there's nothing inherently novel about it to be discussed, it simply describes a specific subdivision of canards, myths, stories, (pick your term). Neither would any of its other incarnations likely be discussed ("antisemitic myths", "...stories", "...") any more than the term "Pueblo Indian folk stories" would need some special treatment. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 17:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- No need to get insulting here. Are any of the sources you found about the term, not just using the term? Because if none exist... .V. [Talk|Email] 16:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm assuming you're not purposely being obtuse. He said there are currently five cites in the article specifically using the term, he didn't say only five references exist. In fact, doing a book text search at Amazon.com brings up 82 books that use the particular term "antisemitic canard" or "anti-semitic canard" and these are just from the limited set of books that happen to have searchable text. Doing a text search in Google Books brings up 503 books. It's hardly a neologism if there are at least over 500 published books that have used that specific terminology, and in any case, the article isn't about the specific term. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 09:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- A neologism has to be "used widely". 5 instances does not imply wide usage. Not to mention the still non-existent article about the term, not just one that uses the term (which must exist, or else it's a neologism.) .V. [Talk|Email] 01:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Scholarly sources currently cited in the article mention the term "Antisemitic canard" 5 times. If you still insist this is WP:NEO, I challenge you to deal with Muhammad after the conquest of Mecca and thousands upon thousands of WP articles first. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Or how about Scandinavian folklore or Legends of Africa? It's not unusual for article topics to have descriptive titles that aren't necessarily coined terms. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 21:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Here's another "term": Muhammad after the conquest of Mecca. Please be so kind as to show us "writings about the term rather than just using it". There are thousands of WP articles like that. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think what V's saying (correct me if I'm wrong) is, are there any writings about the term rather than just using it - iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- A number of books and articles describe Antisemitic canards/ Antisemitic hoaxes/ Antisemitic myths/ Antisemitic legends, etc. . ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep: It's a clear fact of historic record that shouldn't be deleted from any source. Besides that, I intend to add some more examples, such as Osama Bin Laden's utterance of the phony Franklin Prophecies in his 2002 "Letter to America," and the Hamas-created false quote of Ariel Sharon that "We control America." ---- DanTD 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Article supports the category and is a well rounded list/overview. John Vandenberg 06:32, 25 April 2007 (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.
