Talk:Adam Wiercinski

Non-notable

Though of course the anti-Semitic harassment of this man is shocking and wrong, I don't see what the point is of creating a Wikipedia article for him. There are unfortunately many many people who are harassed for their ethnic background, religion, sex, sexual orientation, skin color, etc., and some of them successfully sue their harassers in court. The phenomena of anti-Semitism, harassment, discrimination, etc., are certainly worth including in WP, and are already covered pretty well (though can always be improved). There may be room for more coverage of the topic of civil litigation in civil rights law in general (something like Civil litigation in civil rights law), but this particular person and case do not seem especially notable: it does not break new ground, it is not an appellate case, the only media coverage has been essentially one article published in the New York Post and picked up (almost verbatim) by Haaretz and the Daily Mail, the person in question is not notable for anything else (see WP:1E and WP:VICTIM) --Macrakis (talk) 16:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

First a comment concerning "a filing of a legal case": the 2009 article actually refers to a different case that was eventually withdrawn by the plaintiff. This may have been due to threats that his apparently illegal collection of benefits would be revealed to the authorities (apparently he worked at the restaurant under a fictional name). His lawyer argued that the employer was aware of this and is as guilty as the plaintiff. The plaintiff himself invoked the fifth when asked about the benefits at the trial. I don't remember where I saw this additional information but this already makes 4 large-circulation dailys reporting on the case, which makes it arguably notable. Tkuvho (talk) 16:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that 4 dailies picking up on the Post story demonstrates much, to tell you the truth. WP is an encyclopedia, not a record of civil suits between individuals and their employers. It would make much more sense to have an article on lawsuits for illegal discrimination and ethnic/religious harassment in general, in which the Wiercinski case might possibly be mentioned as an example. --Macrakis (talk) 23:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The importance of the case does not come out clearly in the current version of the article. I was hoping other editors might be interested in joining in to develop it. Some civil rights groups have commented that the significance of this is the precedent it sets that verbal abuse can also be grounds for conviction. As such, the case sends an important message to all future Muniaks and Zboziens. Tkuvho (talk) 08:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe verbal abuse is a well-established kind of workplace harassment under EEOC regulations -- it has certainly been mentioned at every harassment training session I've attended at the companies I've worked at. If we can cite statements by civil rights groups that this case is significant and precedent-setting, that changes things. By the way, no one was "convicted" of anything -- this was a civil suit. --Macrakis (talk) 22:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Verbal abuse is well-established harassment when it comes to minority groups protected under Affirmative Active frameworks and such, but this is the first case I have seen in the US of a fine for anti-Semitic harassment. I can cite an established newspaper reporting in the name of unnamed civil rights groups that this is "precedent-setting". I am sure if I look around I will find something more direct as well. Perhaps you can help? Tkuvho (talk) 07:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Religion has defined a "protected class" since 1964. If you Google [eeoc anti-semitic], you will find examples where the EEOC sued on the basis of anti-semitism. And again, this is not a criminal case, so there is no "fine"; the jury awarded $1 of actual damages and $900k of punitive damages. --Macrakis (talk) 13:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

An award of "punitive damages" is a "fine", no? Tkuvho (talk) 13:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

To User:Macrakis: I would prefer restoring the haaretz and daily news links, since they support the notability of this page (even if the articles themselves where copied from the new York post which has not yet been established), and some editors wish to challenge such notability. So if it is the same with you, I will restore the two links. Tkuvho (talk) 08:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

If you read the articles side-by-side, I think you'll find that they're pretty much clones. I suppose you could argue that if 10 newspapers pick up a wire service story, that makes the story more significant than if they don't, but I don't find it a very strong argument. --Macrakis (talk) 22:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your comments on WP:1E and WP:VICTIM: I think the page arguably meets those standards. If you wish I can give my reasons. Tkuvho (talk) 08:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Antisemitism in the United States

Having briefly read the discussion above, I'm convinced that the best thing to do with this article is to merge it with Antisemitism#United States, or in the proper section in either History of antisemitism in the United States or Antisemitism in the United States. --Shalom11111 (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

That might be an idea, provided the editors active at those pages agree. Would you like to raise the issue there? I just raised it at wiki project "discrimination" so I would rather not multiply forums personally. Tkuvho (talk) 13:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response - I'll nominate the article for deletion tomorrow. Thanks, Shalom11111 (talk) 03:56, 7 December 2013 (UTC)