Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass arrest
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. NW (Talk) 22:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mass arrest[edit]
- Mass arrest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
topic too vague and undefined. lack of reliable sources DivaNtrainin (talk) 17:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no agreement regarding what the definition of mass arrest is. When reviewing the references on the wiki site, one references (Baltimore Sun article) uses the term to describe an activity where African Americans were being racially profiled and therefore had an increased chance of being arrested. Other scenarios use it to describe the arrest any number of activists at a protest. The media uses the term to describe a wide range of activities. In addition, it is difficult to find any resources that discusses mass arrest. By reliable references, I am referring to an article, book, or source that discusses some aspect of mass arrests, such as the politics, legal challenges, definition, or history of mass arrests. There are a number of articles that reference the term mass arrest in the title but then the article discusses the protest or the protesters themselves. Using a term in an article's title doesn't mean that the article is a reliable source for a Wiki page. I am proposing that this article be deleted and to add a section to the arrest page to keep the discussion open. If in the future, mass arrests are defined and studied by scholors outside of Wikipedia, then we can recreate a Wiki page.DivaNtrainin (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, manifestly notable, and not too hard to define. In layman's terms, a mass arrest is when a bunch of people are arrested. Tisane talk/stalk 18:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Decline, in response to Tisane's comments: If three people got arrested at once for all participating in an armed robbery, would this be mass arrest? If two protesters got arrested on two different days at a multi-day protest on different charges, is this a mass arrest? Both these circumstances meet your definition of mass arrests. There are infinite more examples where multiple people are arrested under generally similiar circumstances. Under what circumstances is there a mass arrest and under what circumstances is it not a mass arrest. Please provide references to back your statement.DivaNtrainin (talk) 19:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why don't you look for sources for yourself? All that you're doing here is showing that you haven't looked at all, a logical consequence of which is that less weight is given to your claims that sources don't exist. After all, if one hasn't looked, one cannot know. Hint: When you hit the works that discuss Japanese naval police, you'll have reached a whole aspect of this subject that is discussed at some length in sources, from which this article can be significantly expanded, but that this article is currently entirely silent upon and provides no clue even exists as an aspect of this subject. Uncle G (talk) 03:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Uncle G, the burden is on you. Please provide the sources you are referring to. SnottyWong communicate 22:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong. Per Wikipedia:Deletion policy, the burden is on DivaNtrainin and indeed on you to present a properly researched rationale, not a rationale based upon no effort that therefore cannot be given much weight. This has been the way to put deletion policy into action correctly since pretty much the first formulation of deletion policy. If you aren't doing this (and you aren't either, below) then you are zero help to AFD and zero help to the encyclopaedia. Opinions based upon no effort to find out whether and what sources exist are opinions with no basis, and not of any use. Contributing productively and helpfully here involves effort, to look for sources, double checking the research of others and covering the holes in the Swiss Cheese. I've given you a clue as to the sources that you'll find if you try. So try. Put the effort in, help Wikipedia, and do the research before commenting in an AFD discussion. Uncle G (talk) 00:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your massive assumption of bad faith not only provides zero to the project, it actually contributes negatively to it. You're assuming that I haven't looked at the sources, and you're wrong. Why not just grow up and provide the links to the sources you're talking about, instead of endlessly arguing, wikilawyering, and wasting everyone's time by trying to "teach us a lesson" by providing clues to your "reliable source treasure hunt" for us to play. SnottyWong confer 04:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you would take the time to search for "mass arrests" in a certain academic database that is particularly popular among liberal arts students, then I think you'll find plenty of references that back up this article's notability. Until you've done your due diligence in that regard, I see no reason to waste further time disputing this matter with you. You've already consumed enough resources with your baseless allegations of non-notability. Tisane talk/stalk 05:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your massive assumption of bad faith not only provides zero to the project, it actually contributes negatively to it. You're assuming that I haven't looked at the sources, and you're wrong. Why not just grow up and provide the links to the sources you're talking about, instead of endlessly arguing, wikilawyering, and wasting everyone's time by trying to "teach us a lesson" by providing clues to your "reliable source treasure hunt" for us to play. SnottyWong confer 04:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong. Per Wikipedia:Deletion policy, the burden is on DivaNtrainin and indeed on you to present a properly researched rationale, not a rationale based upon no effort that therefore cannot be given much weight. This has been the way to put deletion policy into action correctly since pretty much the first formulation of deletion policy. If you aren't doing this (and you aren't either, below) then you are zero help to AFD and zero help to the encyclopaedia. Opinions based upon no effort to find out whether and what sources exist are opinions with no basis, and not of any use. Contributing productively and helpfully here involves effort, to look for sources, double checking the research of others and covering the holes in the Swiss Cheese. I've given you a clue as to the sources that you'll find if you try. So try. Put the effort in, help Wikipedia, and do the research before commenting in an AFD discussion. Uncle G (talk) 00:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Uncle G, the burden is on you. Please provide the sources you are referring to. SnottyWong communicate 22:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why don't you look for sources for yourself? All that you're doing here is showing that you haven't looked at all, a logical consequence of which is that less weight is given to your claims that sources don't exist. After all, if one hasn't looked, one cannot know. Hint: When you hit the works that discuss Japanese naval police, you'll have reached a whole aspect of this subject that is discussed at some length in sources, from which this article can be significantly expanded, but that this article is currently entirely silent upon and provides no clue even exists as an aspect of this subject. Uncle G (talk) 03:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The bigger surprise is that we didn't have an article about this already, and as Tisane points out, the definition isn't really in dispute. Arrests of a group of people who are all charged with the same crime (disturbing the peace, trespass, etc.) will in turn give rise to the problem of charging and trying the group as well [1], so it's certainly notable enough for its own article. In answer to the question by Decline about how many people are required for it to be a mass arrest, it's like the number required for a massacre or a mass protest-- however many people the independent, reliable and verifiable source wants it to be. Mandsford 19:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. - Absolutely a notable concept. The article is weak, but give it time. Carrite (talk) 22:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Uncle G has pointed the way so all we have to do is follow, per our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep When you take a brief moment to click the Google news search at the top of the AFD, you'll find 3,200 results. It can be defined as a "mass arrest" if the news media calls it that. Google book search has 449 results as well to wade through. Dream Focus 02:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As usual, the WP:GHITS argument proves nothing. Also, 3200 google hits is a rather small amount, so your argument would seem to favor deletion. Google hits only shows how many times the term has been used on web pages, not how many times it has been significantly discussed in reliable sources. SnottyWong soliloquize 22:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Google NEWS hits. The nominator questioned what could be defined as mass arrest, I pointed out that if the news media calls it that, that's what it is. And if the term is used that often by the news media, then its notable, plus the news results meet the requirement of it being verifiable. Yesterday I added a link to a magazine interview where President Jimmy Carter commented on "mass arrest" and how it contributed to the political unrest of the day. A list of all notable mass arrest in history would be quite encyclopedia to add also. Dream Focus 00:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As usual, the WP:GHITS argument proves nothing. Also, 3200 google hits is a rather small amount, so your argument would seem to favor deletion. Google hits only shows how many times the term has been used on web pages, not how many times it has been significantly discussed in reliable sources. SnottyWong soliloquize 22:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{Rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron, with no explanation as to why this article should be rescued and how that could happen (per ARS instructions). SnottyWong confabulate 22:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Arrest. I can't see any reason why the arrests of multiple people need to be discussed in a different article than the individual arrests of single people. They are all just arrests. Also, the nominator makes a point that there is no clear definition of "mass arrest". Sure, if 500 people are arrested simultaneously in the same general location for the same reason, no one will argue that that is a mass arrest. However, what if 2 people are arrested simultaneously? Is that a mass arrest? If not, how about 3? 5? 10? 100? Where is the cutoff point? Where are the sources which define this cutoff point? If 5 people getting arrested at the same time is considered a mass arrest, then what about 1 person getting arrested each day during a 5-day continuous protest? These questions are not answered in reliable sources (that I've seen). SnottyWong chat 22:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- When has the term mass arrest been used for just 3 people? You have to have a large number of people rounded up at once to qualify as massive. Dream Focus 00:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. It's kinda like how mass murder is rarely used to refer to killing three people. Tisane talk/stalk 05:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- When has the term mass arrest been used for just 3 people? You have to have a large number of people rounded up at once to qualify as massive. Dream Focus 00:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, the first Google news result shows a judge issuing an order, defining mass arrest is the arrest of a hundred people or more. [2] You most likely have a legal definition out there for various areas. Dream Focus 00:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I highly doubt dream focus actually read all the gnews results, the term is vague. fails in depth coverage test. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.194.87.125 (talk) 16:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that 192.194.87.125 has made three edits ever, all of which were in AFDs after me. Dream Focus 19:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Massively notable and important concept, per the fact a US president has talk about the topic and there are over 9000 matches on google books, including a book specifically on mass arrest procedures and a Law book that seems to be recommending all US sate and municipal jurisdictions should have their own plans for handling mass arrests. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Seems like this one is the "hot topic" of the moment, all the usual hyper-inclusionists have gathered round to protect this poorly written article about a topic, the definition of which is so vague and floaty that no two sources can quite agree on how to use the term. Most of the "keep, it's notable" !votes fail to understand that it's only notable when one commits enough WP:SYNTH to massage the topic into a single notable definition, ignoring sources which use the term in a completely different fashion. Anyway, until the collective consciousness of the English-speaking world can agree on a single definition for this (as they have for, for instance, race riot), it's too impossibly vague a topic to warrant an encyclopedic article. Not all sources have to agree on what breeds are Toy dogs, but if some sources used it to refer to small dogs and other sources used the term to refer to dogs made of plastic and still other sources used the term to refer to dogs owned and bred primarily for the purpose of entertainment... then Toy dog would have troubles being found a suitable encyclopedic topic as well. Badger Drink (talk) 06:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually there does seem to be a common and consistent underlying definition – a mass arrest is the simultaneous arrest of a large number of people. The Baltimore Sun article signals that its using the term in a non standard sense by putting it in quotes. Where most sources differ its merely a matter of context. (Sadly google books is only offering limited preview on the most promising references, so it make take a bit of research to improve the article without violating our OR policy). Even if there were significant incompatible definitions in the sources, the best approach to a massively notable and socially important topic like this would be either to describe the different definitions in the article (e.g. as in done in Capital account where the sources use the term in a much more fundamentally different sense than seems to be the case here) or to just create different articles on the various meanings (e.g. Heavenly Twins (Sumner and Cunliffe) , Heavenly Twins (Catamaran) etc.) FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keepper all the above. Mass arrest is definitely notable, just like genocide.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't quite understand that analogy. SnottyWong confabulate 15:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Clearly notable subject with many reliable sources. Article could probably use a section on the Palmer Raids. Edward321 (talk) 13:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.