Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 January 5

January 5

Apartheid wall -> whatever it directs to at the moment, either Allegations of Israeli Apartheid or Israeli West Bank barrier

The result of the debate was Converted to disambig. References have been provided for multiple uses of this term. Apartheid Wall has also been re-targeted to Apartheid wall as part of this closure. -- JLaTondre 00:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Divisive and unnecessary redirect. This remains after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apartheid wall, when an article under this name was deleted. The AfD was closed making Apartheid wall redirect to Israeli West Bank barrier, which is, specifically, what the term refers to. However, this is the term used for the wall by the Jews Against the Occupation group, it's unlikely to be a search term, and in that article, it is explained that the term refers to the Israeli West Bank barrier. No other articles link to this redirect, but there are plenty of other links in user or project space. In the meantime, an edit war has erupted over which target is appropriate. IMO, we just don't need to have the redirect at all; let's just get rid of it. Mango juice^talk 21:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it is a likely search term as it is used as a shorthand far more widely than Mangojuice suggests. I have no strong opinion over which of the two articles it redirects to. Catchpole 21:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me point out that if the redirect is going to be kept, we should be discussing which target it should have; this was previously settled by an AfD debate but has now come "into contention. Myself, I prefer that it link to Israeli West Bank barrier, but that article should probably mention the term and link to Allegations of Israeli Apartheid. Mango juice^talk 22:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notice how it actually says that the West bank barrier is known as the apartheid wall in the article. --Wizardman 06:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The term is in common use. -- Randall Bart 08:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as long as the article "Israeli West Bank barrier" exists.Bless sins 15:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and point to Israeli West Bank barrier - that's what it refers to. Gavia immer (u|t|c) 15:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and point to Israeli West Bank barrier. One side calls it the Apartheid wall, the other side calls it the Israeli separation fence. Both are redirects, and that's how it should be. --John Nagle 17:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and point to Israeli West Bank barrier. --- RockMFR 18:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Separation barrier - as explained here [1] Amoruso 09:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Separation barrier - as per Amoruso. --Leifern 13:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Failing that, re-direct to Allegations of Israeli apartheid or Separation barrier. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First choice, or redirect to Separation barrier. Guy Montag 19:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV. Xiner (talk, email) 23:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and point to Israeli West Bank barrier. "Apartheid wall" returns 392,000 hits on google compared to 12,000 for "Israeli west bank barrier" so I think it is likely to be entered as a search term. Also, I think those doing so are more likely to be looking for information on the barrier. I see no evidence that the term is used for any of the other barriers listed in separation barrier so it's warranted to point it specifically to Israeli West Bank Barrier. --Duke of Duchess Street 00:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Israeli West Bank barrier per Mangojuice. --tickle me 00:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Apartheid" is not only a loaded POV term, but is also taken out of historical context in this particular usage. Abe Froman 01:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per John Nagle and Duke of Duchess Street. "Israeli West Bank barrier" is a NPOV title. If there are two terms which are commonly used to refer to this barrier, they should both be redirects to the main article. This redirect doesn't say "The Israeli West Bank barrier is an apartheid wall". All it says is "Apartheid wall is a term occasionally used to refer to the Israeli West Bank barrier". Quack 688 01:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or if not deleted, redirect should be to Allegations of Israeli apartheid or Separation barrier; not Israeli West Bank barrier. 6SJ7 02:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Quack 688. I just read this out of curiosity as I was answering the below AfD, meaning I don't care about this and know almost no details. If only evaluating what has been written on this page, then the summary by Quack makes most sense. --Merzul 10:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and redirect to one of the aforementioned options. CJCurrie 22:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Vote summary at 5 days:

- Keep - 11

- Delete - 8

- or redirect to Israeli West Bank Barrier - 1

- or redirect to Separation barrier - 3

- or redirect to Allegations of Israeli apartheid or Separation barrier - 2

- just delete - 2

- Ambiguous, redirect to Israeli West Bank Barrier - 1 (MangoJuice)

Clearly there's not much sentiment for outright deletion, so the real question is what to redirect to. There are 5 votes for Separation barrier or Allegations of Israeli apartheid, which is not a consensus. We seem to have a weak consensus for the status quo, which is redirection to Israeli West Bank Barrier. Request a close on that basis. Thanks, everyone. --John Nagle 20:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was stupid enough to make my ignorant opinion heard, I should also say that I don't see any consensus on the target! And I'm afraid, if I had looked a bit deeper into what was at stakes, I would probably had supported the redirect to Allegations of Israeli apartheid. That article could even mention the wall in the lead without loss of neutrality. And if somebody searches for "Apartheid wall", they are probably interested in issues regarding apartheid as well, why otherwise use a loaded term. Sorry I should not start a discussion here, what I meant to say is that I don't see this weak consensus on the target. discussion needs to continue on the appropriate talk page. But I can now leave this dispute, take care! --Merzul 00:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As there is no consensus on the target, and there is a long history of controversy (150 edits on what is now a redirect!) - as a compromise would it possible to make it into a disambig page, gently worded, something to the effect that 'this phrase may refer to' X,Y,Z. That way, if anyone actually uses this as a search term, they will see that there alternative uses/forms/etc. for the phrase. SkierRMH 02:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That or even an article which draws on a few different main articles and discusses the use of the term would be good. Of course, an article would need to be written and would need to comply with WP:V. So if someone is willing to do the work, I'd definately support a disambig or verifiable article. BigNate37_(T) 00:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

WP:NOTRUTH -> Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ#Doesn't Wikipedia care about truth?

The result of the debate was Renamed to WP:NOTTRUTH and the old redirect deleted. I also retargetted it to Wikipedia:Verifiability as suggested here. —Centrx→talk • 15:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading redirect. "No truth" seems to imply that Wikipedia doesn't care about the truth, or that Wikipedia lists falsehood. What is meant is that we care about the truth but want it verified, but the shortcut is too short for that. >Radiant< 15:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment Ok, I understand this objection. I created this page as an overreaction to somebody consistently deleting my sourced statements from reliable sources because these were "cited untruths". I'm now completely over this argument, but please please please I don't want something like that to happen ever again. I believe that WP:NOTRUTH is a good label to have, and it is not misleading at all! Maybe it should redirect to WP:VERIFY that states very explicitly that the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. It doesn't say it has to be verified truth, it says verifiability, NOT truth. Personally, I think that the FAQ entry reflects official wikipedia policy very well. I would actually prefer, if people thought wikipedia lists falsehoods from reliable sources, rather than the current misconception that wikipedia should contain what can be verified by sufficiently deep analysis of primary sources. The first misconception might create some superficial arguments for people who want to criticize wikipedia, but the second misconception is what gives those critics a real case to argue. --Merzul 17:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I would amend this with a less polemical explanation. I'm considering spending a large amount of time writing up some of the poorer articles on the philosophy of religion, such as the argument from nonbelief. This is a difficult area and one should rely exclusively on secondary sources for any significant judgment. However, it is also a very emotionally loaded topic. It seems that everybody can do philosophy, so secondary sources are not needed. Doing source-based research is hard, when you spend a few hours reading modern academic interpretations and cite one or two sentences, only to have it deleted because it is "not true", you get frustrated. I would really like WP:NOTRUTH to defend myself. Please don't interpret this as supporting falsehoods or fringe theories, the intention is precisely the opposite. Are there any objections, if this was redirected to Wikipedia:Verifiability??? --Merzul 23:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it should be NOTTRUTH or NOTJUSTTRUTH. Rich Farmbrough, 17:40 7 January 2007 (GMT).

Rename per discussion. Xiner (talk, email) 23:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to WP:NOTTRUTH. The longer notjusttruth can be seen as implying that Wikipedia encourages the inclusion of false opinions for balance. I think nottruth is the least misleading, and is exactly what I should have picked to begin with. --Merzul 10:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to WP:NOTTRUTH. I also wouldn't be opposed to a change of target, but that doesn't require RfD. Eluchil404 17:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Y! Gallery, FurAffinity → Sheezy art

The result of the debate was Deleted by Crzrussian (db-redirnone). -- JLaTondre 03:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caught this because I was watching the currently-deleted FurAffinity. These do not seem to concern the same subject and the Sheezy Art article does not seem to have any real information about the former two. Superficially, this looks a bit spammy, and I think the latter article will be deleted soon, anyway. —AySz88 \^-^ 02:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Father of the Year → The Brady Bunch

The result of the debate was delete. —Centrx→talk • 15:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant and confusing. Nonsense redirect Recurring dreams 10:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless there's a better target somewhere. "Father of the Year" is far too general a concept to redirect to one television program. Gavia immer (u|t|c) 15:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Father of the Year could mean anything, better to delete it. --Wizardman 06:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 23:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Duke of Duchess Street 00:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, I couldn't even begin to think how long that would be as a disambig page!! SkierRMH 02:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.