- Bigotgate (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
This was speedy-deleted by User:Syrthiss as (G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP). This seems an incorrect use of G10 as the item in question was a redirect to a respectable and well-sourced article not an attack page and there are plenty of reliable sources which testify to the prevalence of this usage. Per WP:CSD, G10 should only be used for pages that disparage or threaten their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose. This is not the case here as there is clearly another purpose - that of navigation using this common search term. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The subject matter of articles may be commonly represented outside Wikipedia by non-neutral terms. Such terms cannot be used as Wikipedia article titles, per the words to avoid guidelines and the general neutral point of view policy. For instance, the widely used but non-neutral expression "Attorneygate" is used to redirect to the neutrally titled Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. The article in question has never used that title, but the redirect was created to provide an alternative means of reaching it.
If a redirect is not an established term and is unlikely to be used by searchers, it is unlikely to be useful and may be nominated for deletion. However, if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources (as defined by Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources), it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms. Please keep in mind that RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes
- Comment My actions are not out of line with the deletion of Bigotsgate and Bigoted woman incident. If there are blp concerns with the first two, then this similarly needs to be censored. I'd have no objection to 2010 Open mic incident as a redirect, or some such. Obviously, if the deletion of the previous two are overturned upon overwhelming consensus then I'd have no objection to this being overturned. Well, technically I'd object...but it would be internalized objection and not invocation of hyperbole. Syrthiss (talk) 15:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For reference, the DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Bigoted woman incident. Syrthiss (talk) 15:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think Bigotsgate should have been deleted either (perhaps redirected), though I endorse the deletion of "Bigoted woman incident" because it begs the question and is a direct attack. As for your suggestion, I think "Gordon Brown open mic incident" would be a good article title if we were to have separate article on the gaffe; but it doesn't appear to have much traction in the media, so I doubt anyone will be searching for it thusly. Redirects should be created from common terms for incidents, and "Bigotgate" is what the media is using. The claim that deleting the redirect to a neutral treatment of the incident already present in the appropriate article will somehow reduce harm to the woman is dubious - she's already all over the news. –xenotalk 15:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict)Overturn per Xeno and then RfD it after the election when everybody's forgotten about it, otherwise these redirects will keep springing up. I endorse all the other deletions, though. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, strongly. Channeling the ICP; "Fuckin BLP, how does it work?" How it shuold work is by considering the real harm that things in this project can do to real people. This is a poor old woman who asked an honest questino of a politician, had no intention, desire or idea that said question would embroil her in a shitstorm from the pol's live mic. This person is not a celebrity, was not seeking selebrity, and should not have her name linked in any manner to the characterization of bigotry. Where it is by an article named "bigoted woman controversy" or a "bigotgate" redirect to another article, both of those are bad. As bad? No, but enough that it should make one pause and consider what harm is being done here. This redir was deleted as an attack, and rightly so per BLP policy. Grow up, Wikipedia, for your own sake and for everyone else's. Tarc (talk) 15:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Should we delete the section on the incident as well? –xenotalk 15:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The section at least explains the matter and places it in context. What I am against is a pejorative term pointing to it. If the drive-by media had come up with, say, "openmicgate", that would probably fly. It is just unfortunate that people are off and running with this slur.Tarc (talk) 15:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We (unfortunately) do not control the mass media, and they have come up with the term "Bigotgate". As a search term, it is worlds better than "Bigoted woman incident" as it simply refers to the fact that Brown used the word "bigot"(ed) but does not have the same connotations that BWI does. I'm not sure that ignoring/suppressing the media-invented term for this does our readers or the harmed woman any favours. I fully agree that "Bigotgate" should be considered entirely unprintworthy (i.e. it should have zero incoming links from articles), but it should be provided as a redirect to the neutral treatment of this incident. –xenotalk 15:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak overturn...it looks like the term is getting used a fair amount by the press and G10 really shouldn't apply to an unfortunate, but widely-used term. However, the term should only be used as a redirect if the usage of "bigotgate" is properly sourced on the main article (currently United Kingdom general election, 2010#28 April, perhaps a future standalone depending on the ultimate impact of the incident). Additionally, whatever the most common RS term for this particular flap ends up being seems like the logical location for the GFDL (described in the other DRV) issue to be resolved. — Scientizzle 15:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn I strongly respect the desire to suppress the article if its based on BLP concerns, but per my comment over at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Bigoted woman incident, theres actually a case that a neautrally written article will help the woman involved as a fair presentation of the availalbe facts find her blameless. With the close to blanket global coverage were not going to significantly raise her profile with an article focusing on the incident and not the woman, especially with a well chosen title like Bigotgate. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn like it or not, this is a term the press, not us has coined, and is being used as a name for this whole incident. While I agree that the whole issue doesn't (at least at this time) deserve an article (and certainly not the poorly titled one deleted and being appealed below), to NOT have a re-direct on something that people could legitamately search for undermines our ability to properly serve as an encyclopedia. BLP is not at issue here, as it is not a term describing the person, rather the incident. To sum up, the re-direct should, imho, exist as a redirect and ONLY a redirect. That'd probably mean protecting it so someone (well meaning, I hope doesn't see a redlink and attempt to re-create the article. Instead of salting something that points to nowhere, we should be pointing people to the relevant article. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, as we are not dependent on the mainstream media I'm not sure that their pejorative term is useful. To borrow a bit of exaggeration, if they were calling something Lyingrottenwhoregate I'd hope that we as an encyclopedia wouldn't feel the need to have that as a redirect as a service to our readers. Syrthiss (talk) 17:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If the term is used in multiple reliable sources, as this one has, why wouldn't we? WP:BLP is a bright line in the sand, something to keep us from recording on the trivial or the inaccurate as if it were true. It is not something to prevent us from recording something that is well documented, merely because its not nice. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and send to RFD. Not at all a speedy candidate. Stifle (talk) 17:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse-If no internal links are to be allowed and we have an intention to AFD it in a week when the election is over, then what do we need it for. I support open mic incident Off2riorob (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's needed to redirect the hundreds of readers keying the phrase into the search box: [3]. –xenotalk 19:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn it is quite obvious not an uncontroversial deletion, and thus not suitable for speedy. Even if it is viewed as inherently and unfairly negative, still the world uses it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 19:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn - I think this is a reasonable navigation aid. JohnCD (talk) 20:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and send to RfD. This title is pretty bad, but still much better than the previous ones. It is also actually in use, so it's plausible. It deserves a full discussion at RfD, at least, though it's still prety marginal. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. I said take it to RfD when I declined the first CSD, but unfortunately my plea fell on deaf ears. Here's how I would respond on Tarc's comments. Why would "bigoted woman controversy" (the article itself) and "bigotgate" be the same? The former focuses on a BLP-subject in question considering the article's title, while the latter focuses to the action by Gordon Brown that is widely-used by the press. Furthermore, it has been admitted that the election article section the redirect last pointed to would put this phrase properly in context. If it was redirected to Bigoted woman incident, then yes I would have deleted it outright as an application of G10. - Mailer Diablo 21:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn This is an adequate use of a redirect, since it's used by sources (redirects don't have the same rules as articles, there are many cases where an article is bad but a redirect is ok). Idem for Bigotsgate. Please make sure that it stays as simply a redirect and that it points to the relevant section in the election article and not to the deleted article.
- P.D.: Syrthiss, xeno is right about the neutrality of redirect, read the paragraphs of guideline that he quoted. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I am seriously tempted to say keep deleted. Wikipedia has made such an almighty balls up of dealing with this incident so far, that it is almost better not to direct people to that pitiful excuse for coverage that has emerged, stillbirth style, from the wreckage of a shotgun Afd closure which has frankly destroyed any hope of this incident ever being written about properly here. The readers who want to learn more about the incident, having heard about it from the many and ongoing mentions of it on tv, radio, and newspapers, of her full name, this term, and any and all conceivable reference inbetween, in everything from serious political coverage to humourous satire and cultural comment, should not have their time wasted by the lie that is Wikipedia's in this new era, where sources like the New York Times is laughingly now considered an irresponsible tabloid apparently. Anyone who has eyes and ears can see Wikipedia has no role to play here in protecting this woman any more, and any editor with any experience knows that proper, FA quality and policy compliant writing about this incident would not remotely resemble a biography about this woman, let alone defame her or otherwise cause damage. Knowledge of this incident is here to stay in the real world, it is part of the political history of the UK already, part of the cultural fabric, an instantly recognisable turning point in Gordon Brown's probable last days in office. Anyone who thinks otherwise, is in denial, or is trying to change Wikipedia into something it is not. So, keep deleted - the quicker readers realise that Wikipedia is pretending nothing happened at all, then the sooner they can go and find a superior information source, and let Wikipedia die the natural death it is well on its way to meeting while it continues to tolerate over-reactions like this, where not even a single plausble search term exists after over 48 hours. Anyone redirected to the election article in its current state, is just going to be confused and bemused, and will most probably just leave, thinking they have just failed to find the main article. MickMacNee (talk) 01:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Process wonkery is not needed; see WP:NOTNEWS. Most people still know how to use Google for a term like this, and Wikipedia does not have to use every silly tabloid fashion-of-the-day label. Johnuniq (talk) 01:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this just a theory of yours, that Bigotgate is only being used by tabloids? Or are you using the new definition of tabloid being used by some here at Wikipedia now, namely, all media, not helped by the rather misleading creation of the WP:TABLOID shortcut. Everyone can use Google yes, and it quite quickly shows that this term is not exclusive to tabloids, using the real definiton. MickMacNee (talk) 01:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then I say we trash the WP:TABLOID redirect as well because Wikipedia does not have to use every silly WP:OMG fashion-of-the-day label. - Mailer Diablo 03:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorsegate per unnecessary redirectgate. Who is really going to search using that term? I mean really? "Rochdale incident" or something perhaps. Actually, people are far more likely to search for "Gillian Duffy" than any passing tabloid cliché. Utterly moronic redirect.--Scott Mac 12:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, we can debate what kind of people they might be (no doubt morons in your eyes), but 300 more of them are searching for Bigotgate than your suggestion (searches for which stands at zero at this time). You are correct of course that her real name has ten times more attempted views, for obvious reasons, but readers won't get any joy out of that one either will they. 124 people even viewed 'Bigoted woman incident' yesterday, even though its been a vanished and salted term for days now. I for one am certainly lost as to what other plausible alternatives you might be thinking of, but if they are as usefull as 'Rochdale incident', we will clearly need one of the verboten ones restored, although as ever, admins to do repair work after a BLP steamroller are thin the ground. Because the 57,000 extra people who have looked at Gordon Brown over the last three days, have of course, found jack. A spike of 1,750 for plain Rochdale is just depressing, and gives a clear sign of the run around certain admins have given readers searching for this, who as mere readers in their naivety, clearly have no idea of Wikipedia's tendency for ridiculous over-reaction and dismissal before the facts, when anybody even mentions the magic three latter acronym. And the outcome of all this hand-wringing? Judging by the lack of any discernible rise in the actual election page views, normal readers, who neither know or care of Wikipedia's BLP phobia, are giving up well before they figure out just where the ethical editors have decided to file this information. Not that what they would find there resembles the real world coverage and notability of the incident in the slightest, thanks to the chilling effect of the Afd. So, if the idea of BLP is to pretend it never happened and piss our readers around, then clearly, it's a job well done. MickMacNee (talk) 16:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your statistics are irrelevant, since WP:NOTNEWS. We'd expect all sorts of searches in the hight of a news story that will not be repeated a few weeks later. It is highly improbable anyone will be searching for "Bigotgate", or any passing tabloid accolade, next year. As for the hits on 'Bigoted woman incident', most of these will be Wikipedian's rubbernecking the deletion discussion. (One of those hits was me, and (I presume) one was you.) If we took NOTNEWS seriously, we'd not have this problem. We are writing an encyclopaedia. If this episode proves to have lasting significance, we can look again later. In the highly improbable scenario that the moronic designation of "Bigotgate" ends up having traction we can look at that too. For now, no evidence exists - try wikinews.--Scott Mac 18:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. Paradoxically — I speedily deleted Bigotsgate — I feel this speedy deletion should be overturned. "Bigotgate" has been used in hundreds of news articles and on television hundreds of times, not just in tabloids, and is not in itself an attack on anyone, be it Gordon Brown or Gillian Duffy. It is the recognised short-hand for this incident. It would be a valid redirect to United Kingdom general election, 2010#28 April, regardless of whether we should have a full article on this incident or not (which I don't favour). p.s. I was amused by this suggestion that Brown didn't think she said "flocking", but another similar word beginning with "f":[4] Fences&Windows 13:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess if most dont want a dedicated article we can at least postpone until a couple of weeks after the election. By then there will be better perspective to see if there are genuine BLP reasons for us not to cover this. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are assuming anybody would bother to review the sources and give it a careful and rationale assesment against our policies and guidelines. It didn't happen the last time, and the lack of due process and rational thought the first time around is likely to be sufficient in persuading anybody who might have been minded the first time round, to not touch this with a bargepole in future, even if Gordon Brown gets a pasting and this incident is cited in every credible analysis as the stand out event of the election. Which is of course, what was already being speculated worldwide just days after the event, in the "tabloid" media. You can tell by the pathetic state of its coverage in the election article as to what the effect has already been in this regard, now the steamroller has rolled off somewhere else. That content stopped being updated about three significant developments ago, not that it even expalains what happened either. Nope, that content is like most sub-par content around here, it is merely a placeholder for the references where readers should go to get the real facts, although they are of course also out of date by now. MickMacNee (talk) 17:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to illustrate the point, this was still being steamrollered at Drv, while thrid party coverage was already stating "It's unfortunate for Gordon Brown that this is what will be remembered when everything else that he has said in the campaign has been forgotten.". Rational discussion of a possible recreation in future, even if someone spends days on it and soothes the panic that this migtht be a horriblly damaging and defaming biography on a poor private woman, rather than an article on a highly notable political gaffe, doesn't stand a chance in this environment of BLP hysteria. Lest anybody forgets as they review this in future, the original Afd was closed after one hour, for "blindingly-obvious" reasons. All that article said was what has happened, much as the rest of the world's media was already doing. Why even bother eh? MickMacNee (talk) 17:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
