Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 January 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 9[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion on January 9, 2008

The Adventures of Jimmy Neutron Boy Genius: Attack of the Twonkies → Attack of the Twonkies (videogame)[edit]

The result of the debate was delete via move request and replace by rename of article Keith D (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I need this page deleted so i can redirect the video games page and avoid destroying edit history, at present, page name isnt correct Salavat (talk) 14:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The edit history shows that this page has already been moved once and that there has been considerable confusion over naming. Would you please lay out your planned moves more clearly? Thanks. Rossami (talk) 14:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, the proper title of the game is The Adventures of Jimmy Neutron Boy Genius: Attack of the Twonkies but at the moment it is being used as a redirect to Attack of the Twonkies (videogame)
Attack of the Twonkies (videogame) isnt a correct title for the game.
So i need The Adventures of Jimmy Neutron Boy Genius: Attack of the Twonkies deleted, so i can redirect Attack of the Twonkies (videogame)to The Adventures of Jimmy Neutron Boy Genius: Attack of the Twonkies without ruining the edit history. Salavat (talk) 15:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Requested at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Uncontroversial proposals. –Pomte 17:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move request completed. Keith D (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Red Terror (India) → Nandigram violence[edit]

The result of the debate was no consensus, defaults to keep. Might be better to specifically link the section Nandigram_violence#November_2007_violence where the term is discussed. WjBscribe 03:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pov redirect. Nandigram violence a conflict with more than one participant, both government and opposition supporters have been accused of atrocities. Usage of the term 'red terror' in redirect denotes a clear pov, to describe the conflict as a unilateral action of CPI(M). Soman (talk) 12:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep This is an attempt by CPI(M) apologists to whitewash the events. Numerous non-partisan media sources have used the term "Red Terror" to denote Communist perpetrated mass killings in West Bengal[1][2]. Sources include the BBC[3][4]Ghanadar galpa (talk) 12:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Red Terror (India) is somewhat unlikely because of the disambig, but I see no reason why people should end up on an empty page when searching for the term, rather than at Nandigram violence. The term certainly seems to be in use. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The Nandigram violence by communists is clearly called Red terror by non-partisn media. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This redirect is produced with the purpose of creating a semantic link between Red terror and Nandigram violence. It is inherently a pov construction. --Soman (talk) 13:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The term Red Terror is used to refer to violence carried out by communists. The violence in Nandigram by communists in India have been called red terror. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The redirect is POV-pushing. "Red terror" was a description used by some members of the West Bengal opposition to a clash between armed groups and the police in Nandigram. It is highly controversial. There is no widely recognised event called "Red Terror" in India.--Conjoiner (talk) 14:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Opposition parties in the state - the Trinamul Congress, the BJP and even the Congress party which needs CPI(M) support for its coalition government in Delhi - have demanded the imposition of federal rule to stop what they call "red terror" in Nandigram - BBC[5]
I must add that the misquotation and exagerration of sources have been rife in the editorial problems with all CPI(M) related material on Wikipedia. The complete indifference of administrators to repeated requests for greater community involvement in these articles is exacerbating the problem. There needs to be some neutral party to moderate the discussions. Until then, we will see more of this nonsense.--Conjoiner (talk) 14:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a typical example of CPI(M) members launching a coordinated attack on wikipedia articles relating to them, violating WP:POINT, WP:OWN and WP:COI. Numerous media outlets, and politicians and commentators have used the term "red terror" to describe the state sponsored massacre in India. It clearly satisfies WP:NOTABILITY, and the only people who benefit from it's exclusion from wikipedia are the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and their Naxalite Indian Maoist allies.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 14:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. The last part is just typical of User:Ghanadar galpa's world-view. In reality CPI(Marxist) and CPI(Maoist) are fierce enemies, with the latter repeatedly killing members of the former. --Soman (talk) 14:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, it should be noted that this discussion is a spin-off of the conflicts at Talk:Communist Party of India (Marxist). Some days back, User:Conjoiner posted an ANI note on Ghanadar galpa's disruptive behaviour. --14:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soman (talk • contribs) [reply]
Note also that User:Ghanadar galpa repeatedly attempts to disparage other editors who challenge his POV-pushing as "Communist gangsters" and failing to assume good faith when he is asked to provide verifiable sources for the POV assertions he insists on inserting into articles. This is not simply a matter of an editorial dispute, but this particular user's behaviour, which has constantly violated WP:AGF (he insists that there is a Communist conspiracy to attack Wikipedia, involving me and Soman), WP:NPA (he has accused other editors of being gangsters and propagandists) and WP:LIVING (he has named living people as Nazis and anti-semites). This is more than a simple editorial dispute, but the aggressive behaviour of one editor who has been warned in the past for their personal attacks on others. The situation can be dealt with by some form of regulation of the arguments on CPI(M)-related articles, or it can escalate as User:Ghanadar galpa intensifies his personal attacks broadens his focus. The choice is ultimately with the administrators.--Conjoiner (talk) 15:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The mainstream media has quoted opposition groups in West Bengal calling it "red terror". "Red terror" has also been used by the CPI(M) to describe Maoist insurgents, who have been responsible for the assassination of CPI(M) activists long before the Nandigram incident (see point 30 here: [6]). It is a loosely applied in the Indian context and commonly refers to left-wing insurgency (ie terrorism) and has only recently been used by right-wing groups to describe the events in Nandigram. To redirect Red Terror (India) to Nandigram is therefore grossly and intentionally misleading.--Conjoiner (talk) 16:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about the BBC[7] and the Times of India[8]? To a Communist propagandist, they are all "Right wing sources". This kind of absurdity is a standard Communist obfuscation tactic.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out above, these are quotes from right-wing opposition groups.--Conjoiner (talk) 16:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment (written prior to Ghanadar galpa's and Conjoiner's two comments above) - the term has be used in mainstream Indian newsmedia. However, a differentiation should be made here. The term 'Red terror' refers to specific features in Soviet, Hungarian, Ethiopian, Spanish etc. modern history. There is no equivalent usage in India. 'Red terror' here just refers to communist violence in general, but there is absolutely no way to state that there is widespread usage which uses Nandigram = Red Terror, rather the Times of India headlines should be understood as 'Red terror' in Nandigram. This is far from the only occassion when communists have been violent in Indian history. --Soman (talk) 16:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between a newspaper printing a headline saying "Red Terror" and a history book describing this incident as a 'Red Terror'. Are there any sources calling this the red terror in a non-trivial manner? By this I mean - explaining how this conforms to the specific meaning and context of the term as used in historical discourse. Has a peer reviewed journal stated it?--Cailil talk 20:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, there isn't. It is an emotive propaganda term and is not used exclusively for the Nandigram dispute in the Indian context. That's why it is a POV redirect.--Conjoiner (talk) 20:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to be used term. Even if it is being misused, it is being used and thus should be kept. Suva Чего? 20:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even when I've shown that "red terror" is not exclusively used by the BJP to describe the events in Nandigram? As I've said before, "red terror" has been used to describe the activities of Maoist insurgents (who attack and kill the West Bengal police and CPI(M) cadres), so the redirect to Nandigram is erroneous, even if some politicians do use "red terror" to describe the Nandigram dispute.--Conjoiner (talk) 20:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The more common usage of "red terror" in India - and one that is used by the Indian government - is related to Maoist/Naxalite insurgency, which is not related to the West Bengal government and Nandigram. Examples of the common use of "red terror" are here: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]. Nandigram is irrelevant to this most common use of the term "red terror" in India.--Conjoiner (talk) 21:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create an article instead of redirect. It seems that Conjoiner is right here (see his links). It makes more sense to create a separate article about "Red Terror" in India, which is a wider topic.Biophys (talk) 05:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given that there is already an article on Naxalism, there really isn't much point in creating a new article on what "red terror" means in India since it will simply cause duplication. At most, a brief mention that some politicians have used "red terror" to describe Naxalism could be introduced to that article, without any need for a new article or a redirect from this page. But it is fairly meaningless to equate it with Stalin's purges and the Chinese Cultural Revolution since it refers to insurgency not a state policy (which is the common understanding of "red terror"). Given that the term "red terror" is highly provocative and emotive in India (used not just by the government but also mainstream Communist parties), it does not befit an encyclopaedia to use it as the title of an article or even a redirect to another article.--Conjoiner (talk) 13:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—yes the term red terror was used at a few instances indicating Nandigram violences. But, it is not specific for the Nandigram violences. It is not the "Red Terror", it was a red terror just in some headlines.--Dwaipayan (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete there is no reason to keep redirect from political slurs. Political opponents call each other "Nazi", "Fascists", etc., and we are not going to introduce , e.g., Stalinism (Putin), just because BBC blurbed "They accused Mr Putin of introducing, "a new stage of modernised Stalinism", " and thousands of similar ones. `'Míkka>t 08:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- based upon my questions asked above and my own digging. There is no peer-reviewed description of these events as a 'red terror'. I would also point editors to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) "If there is no common name for the event and no generally accepted descriptive word, use a descriptive name that does not carry POV implications.". This redirect is in effect an article name, unless it conforms to the policies for naming conventions it must be deleted. On that point I doubt there is a general consensus among English speakers of the term "Indian Red Terror" to describe the violence at Nandigram. And as above I can see no scholarly source, or third party peer-reviewed source calling it this or applying the definition of a red terror to it or indicating similarities to the Red Terror in Ethiopia or elswhere. The term has been used trivially not seriously. Also the fact that opposition groups describe the violence of other groups as a red terror does not make the term notable enough for an article name or a redirect - an extremist source is not even an adequate source within an article(see WP:RS)--Cailil talk 13:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Compaq Presario 2100 → Compaq Presario[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 03:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was the result of a CSD that was turned into a redirect. Since it is very unlikely that anyone will search for this and the only thing that links here is the article on Compaq Presario, I suggest that this be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marlith (talk • contribs) 05:42, 9 January 2008

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

Compaq Presario 4565ES → Compaq Presario[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 03:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was the result of a CSD that was turned into a redirect. Since it is very unlikely that anyone will search for this and the only thing that links here is the article on Compaq Presario, I suggest that this be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marlith (talk • contribs) 05:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_January_9&oldid=1141906990"