Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 November 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 9[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 9, 2009

Canterbury cathedral facts[edit]

The result of the discussion was speedy delete - straightforward dirty po. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an implausible redirect. Tavix |  Talk  23:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 01:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While not entirely implausible, we allow ourselves to assume that our readers understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Redirects like "Foo article", "Foo facts", etc. are not needed. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article should have been speedy deleted rather than turned into an implausible redirect. Stephen! Coming... 18:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Fort Hood terrorist attack[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Delete. This redirect title is a clear violation of WP:BLP, in that it implies an editorial judgment without an overwhelming consensus of reliable mainstream sources required to support it. The Keep comments do not explain how this violation is acceptable. Crum375 (talk) 04:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete this. It amounts to a POV-fork and a BLP violation against the suspect. The article List of terrorist incidents, 2009 ‎had to be protected because of this dispute, and it should be stopped now instead of spreading further. If the FBI declares this to be a terrorist attack, then and only then would this redirect be appropriate. ~YellowFives 22:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 276,000 Google hits, an often-used term to refer to the event. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those off-wiki opinions are of course irrelevant to WP:NPOV and WP:BLP ~YellowFives 22:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, clearly speedy delete. There is no such thing as the "Fort Hood Terrorist Attack" and it's unlikely anyone would search for the incident under that moniker. Normally redirects are harmless, but this one is not. There's an ongoing POV battle afoot whether to describe the incident as terrorist or not, given that the perpetrator is Muslim, the attack was on American soldiers, etc., not very cool stuff. We try to avoid labeling things as terrorist per WP:TERRORIST, so the only way this is legitimate is if this is a common way to refer to the incident. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How is this a BLP issue? Also see September 11 terrorist attack --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a BLP violation, because on every related page, William, you keep trying to call this living person a terrorist when the FBI has not concluded that he is. ~YellowFives 22:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources and experts have as well. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And none of them are Wikipedians (for the record, both Lieberman and Phares said it might be terrorism, and I'm not surprised that you continue to distort this). None of those people are bound by our policies. We have to abide by BLP and NPOV, and you are trying to spread the edit war that got List of terrorist incidents, 2009 protected. We wait for the FBI to make the call. ~YellowFives 23:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We are not bound by the FBI. We are bound by reliable sources and experts. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We are bound by BLP, and it is a BLP violation to call this man a terrorist before the FBI does. ~YellowFives 01:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where is that written at WP:BLP? --William S. Saturn (talk) 02:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, etc. Grsz11 23:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I declined G10 in favor of this discussion. The redirect is not an egregious BLP violation: plenty of media and pundits are speculating on terrorist connections. Thus, the redirect may serve a useful purpose--a lack of useful purpose is a criterion for G10. I take no position on the redirect's overall value, but note that G10 is for things where no good faith dissent exists--the fact that there is such dissent already registered above makes G10 inappropriate in this case. Jclemens (talk) 00:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BLP is always speedy. The standard for BLP violations is not "no good faith dissent exists" for committing a BLP violation, it is poorly sourced claims about living individuals. To have Wikipedia claim that the man is a terrorist is a BLP violation but, beyond, something of a weird embarrassment on the project. I suggest blanking the redirect as a BLP matter or otherwise hiding it while we discuss. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:TERRORIST, this is simply an NPOV violation, not a BLP violation. The redirect asserts nothing about the incident. Really, a lot of you need to read WP:R#Neutrality of redirects. There is no confusion, no harm to the suspect, and no compelling reason for this redirect to be deleted outside of process. Again, feel free to SNOW close this, but premature, out-of-policy modifications citing BLP inappropriately are disruptive and coercive. Jclemens (talk) 04:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TERRORIST is a style guideline, and correct me if I'm wrong but it is my understanding that guidelines do not trump policies like WP:BLP. The redirect asserts that it is a terrorist incident. And of course is harm to the suspect. There is prima facie harm in being called a terrorist. ~YellowFives 05:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
... Which is all well and good, but the redirect describes the attack a terrorist attack, not the suspect a terrorist. You've got to climb that hurdle before it becomes a BLP issue, and you'd have to WP:SYNTH to get there from here. Jclemens (talk) 18:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bridge too far, and strains all credulity to breaking. There cannot be a terrorist attack without a terrorist. The only suspect is Hasan. If this is a terrorist attack, then Hasan is a suspected terrorist. And the FBI hasn't said that yet, so we've crossed the line of BLP. Your logic does not convince. ~YellowFives 23:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So... it's OK to "call" him a suspected multiple murderer, but not to "call" him a suspected terrorist? Ooooookay. I find that argument singularly unconvincing. BLP either applies to both, or neither. Jclemens (talk) 23:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if it's OK to call him a suspected multiple murderer. I have been concentrating on the worst because that's all that I have the energy for. "Terrorist" is such a highly charged and political term that it is more prejudicial than almost anything imaginable. If we could put this behind us (yeah right, I know) then I might have the energy for "multiple murderer." ~YellowFives 01:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The opinions come from experts. --William S. Saturn (talk) 02:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who are merely speculating on this case, therefore their opinions are irrelevant. Until the facts are in, Jessica Simpson's opinion would be every bit as valid. Or Homer's, for that matter. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree on that point. I feel the opinions of Michael Mukasey, Michael Scheuer, Barry McCaffrey are relevant on the topic. Regardless, the term Fort Hood terrorist attack is widely used and is therefore a legitimate redirect. --William S. Saturn (talk) 02:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They might be experts on the general topic, but that doesn't mean they know diddly about this case. For all we know, the guy could simply be a lunatic. Or a government agent trying to make Muslims look bad. Mass murder doesn't become terrorism just because he's Muslim. The mass murderers in the Columbine High School massacre aren't labeled terrorists, for example. And until there is proof, and not the personal opinions of people with no connection to this case, then it ain't terrorism. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is simply your opinion. For many others, this is the term used to describe the event. --William S. Saturn (talk) 02:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And that's their opinion. Unless they are privy to inside information in this specific case, their opinions mean nothing more than those of Mickey Mouse. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is the term not being widely used? --William S. Saturn (talk) 02:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, by the right-wing tin foil hat-wearing bloggers you're probably reading. Grsz11 02:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you're referring to Fox News. --William S. Saturn (talk) 02:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all actually. Grsz11 02:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there ya are, the personal opinion of Bill O'Reilly. Whoop-di-doo. And it doesn't matter how "widely used" an accusation is, because BLP trumps such "wide use". Now, if someone actually involved with the case, such as the FBI, labels it terrorism, then you've got something. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I admire William S. Saturn's tenacity, but consensus over several different articles he's edited is to avoid calling this a terrorist attack for now. This redirect is a POV fork and potential BLP violation. By avoiding the term "terrorism" for now, Wikipedia is not saying that it is definitively not terrorism, it is just remaining silent on the issue while facts are being sorted out. Based on available information it seems premature to make a definitive statement that this is terrorism. Dawn Bard (talk) 03:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well-stated. I was thinking about the McVeigh case and why it was called terrorism and why Columbine wasn't. It was because McVeigh's was a specifically political act, to try to inflict pain upon the U.S.A. Likewise with the 9/11 attacks. The Columbine kids were just trying to inflict pain and suffering on their classmates. And we don't know yet whether the killer in this case was making a political statement or if he just went nuts. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirects aren't assertions of anything in particular. They're navigational aids that help people get to the right Wikipedia article. NPOV redirects are encouraged in WP:R, and POV forks are to be turned into... wait for it... redirects! Jclemens (talk) 04:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Outright calling the man a terrorist, though, is more than a POV problem. It wouldn't be as big a deal if he were dead, but he's going to stand trial for this. I looked at WP:R but this is different both on its face and in its consequences from [[Barack Obama Muslim rumor|Barack Obama Muslim rumor] ~YellowFives 05:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Outright calling WHICH man a terrorist? A suspect to multiple murders is documented by RS in the target article. The redirect asserts that the multiple murders were a terrorist attack. The redirect does not assert that the suspect is a terrorist, just that the attack was terrorism. POV yes (which means a redirect), but not BLP. Jclemens (talk) 18:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't "terrorist attacks" generally held to be done by, y'know, "terrorists" ? Calling it by the former implies the latter. Tarc (talk) 18:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It has not been legally established that any particular individual conducted the attack, has it? "Innocent until proven guilty" works both ways. Jclemens (talk) 18:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So your position is that the attack itself was an act of terrorism, but since the suspect in question is only that, a suspect, that we cannot connect A --> B --> C? You are, at best, excusing the BLP concerns via technicality. Tarc (talk) 19:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neither I nor the redirect are asserting anything. You REALLY need to think through what redirects are and do: they take people from the "wrong" search term to the "right" search term. In order to deal with POV readers who search for POV things, we create redirects from POV names to NPOV articles. The redirect is POV, the article title is NPOV. That's that way it's supposed to be. We don't make people guess to try and find an NPOV name for what they're looking for, we create the NPOV terms and redirect them to a neutrally written place. THAT is why this redirect exists, and THAT is completely missing from most of the argumentation on this page. Jclemens (talk) 21:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is definitely not why this redirect exists. This redirect exists because William has chosen to disrupt Wikipedia through his relentless POV pushing, and he was frustrated that List of terrorist incidents, 2009 had been protected. We still have no reason to think that anyone but William is using this redirect. ~YellowFives 23:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Poor motivation isn't sufficient reason to delete an otherwise acceptable redirect. Redirects are the place where POV pushers can have the most success, because NPOV doesn't apply. As long as a term is covered reasonably by RS (a much lower threshold than WP:N), it's OK for an NPOV redirect to exist. I don't frequent current events articles, and I haven't made any edits to the target article, the list of terrorism events, etc. As far as I'm concerned, the local consensus in all those places to avoid calling it a terrorist act is just fine. I came here because I patrol attack pages, and this redirect, which doesn't mention the suspect by name, was nominated for G10. In many ways, NPOV redirects serve to "throw a bone" to significant minorities, although there are perennial debates on which should be the article and which should be the redirect (Sears Tower comes to mind). Redirects aren't assertions of fact, they're redirections to articles that discuss things in an NPOV manner. BTW, you're making excellent arguments for someone so new to Wikipedia--you just don't happen to have persuaded me. :-) Jclemens (talk) 23:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why, thank you. I really appreciate the compliment. Wikipedia is through the looking glass, everyday terms each have a unique and counterintuitive meaning here and it's been kind of exhausting to learn them. But it seems like it's hard to be taken seriously unless you know all the acronyms! And I've had people tell me that policies don't mean such and such, when I just read the policy yesterday. So thank you, Jclemens, you're the first person to say so. —— I must say if NPOV is not meant to apply at all to redirects, I think that is a mistake, and I think it's more reasonable to at least have these discussions to differentiate good faith disagreement from wanton POV pushing. ~YellowFives 01:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. There is existing speculation that this might have been intended as a terror attack, so this is at least a likely search term. I can't say I like William S. Saturn's attempts to portray this as definitely a terrorist incident all over the encyclopedia, but of course RfD is not a forum for such matters in any case. For me, the BLP concerns are trumped by the fact that this redirect points to an article that (currently) explains that the attacker's motives are (again, currently) unknown. However, I'm certainly mindful of those BLP arguments, so this is only a weak keep. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would Nazi Pope be an acceptable redirect to Pope Benedict XVI? Lots of people call him the Nazi Pope so it's a likely search term, and the article mentions that he was in the Luftwaffenhelfer. I think it would be unacceptable to slight the man by outright calling him a fascist like that, but I can't see anything in your argument that would preclude doing so. ~YellowFives 05:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My argument is meant to be specific to this case, not a comprehensive test for all such cases. Having said that, I don't see where you arrive at such a conclusion. Speculation about a terrible event is not the same as the collection of all possible derogatory nicknames for all possible people. — Gavia immer (talk) 06:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I call Godwin's law--you lose. :-) Jclemens (talk) 22:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I said we shouldn't call the Pope a Nazi. That was a preemptive strike against Godwin. ;-) ~YellowFives 23:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I see this as a BLP issue, regardless of what redirect guidelines say. There's no reason we should cater to people coming here to find out who the "Fort Hood terrorist" was. Just because people are speculating it was terrorism, with absolutely no conclusive proof, doesn't mean we should pander to that motivation. The existence of the redirect implies that Wikipedia agrees the living person could be a terrorist. In fact, there is no reliable evidence at all that this was a "terrorist" attack. Franamax (talk) 05:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete POV fork to finesse consensus at Fort Hood shooting, WP:BLP and WP:POINT, at least, also apply. PhGustaf (talk) 06:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – a little too POV in my view. MuZemike 06:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Possible search term. Not a BLP issue since nobody disputes that a shooting took place there. What's not yet legally certain is who is responsible, but the redirect does not imply that the current suspect did it. As to whether it should be properly called a terrorist attack or whatever, that's a matter for discussion at the target article, but as long as at least some reliable media use "terrorist attack", I see nothing wrong in using it as a redirect. The possible motivations of the redirect creator (who I do not know) ought not to matter.  Sandstein  06:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Serious POV issues with this redirect, and "possible search term" is a pretty weak keep rationale given that. The relevant authorities in the United States (military, FBI, etc.) simply are not referring to this as a terrorist attack at this time—full stop. If they do that would change things, obviously, but we're not at all there yet. The fact that some media commentators are referring to this as a terrorist incident no more forces us to create this redirect than does the fact that some media sources are talking about the shooting as PTSD related force us to create a Fort Hood shooting caused by PTSD redirect. Limiting conjecture and speculation about this event is a good thing for us to do, and POV redirects don't help us with that. Also the fact that William S. Saturn is pushing this "it was terrorism" meme on multiple pages (very much against consensus) is extremely relevant as the activities are rather disruptive, at least in my view. Given that context, validation of this POV, somewhat pointy redirect is not remotely a good idea. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is a bit of agenda-pushing behind this, and while redirects are mostly exempt from WP:NPOV, I think this should wait until the event is actually classified as an act of terrorism. A similar situation, the Hasan Akbar case does not have any terrorism-related redirects, for example. I don't find it to be a plausible search term, and just looking up Fort Hood will get you to the article easier. Tarc (talk) 13:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We don't have a redirect at Hiroshima terrorist attack, we discuss in the article the fact that some authorities identify it as terrorism. We don't have that redirect, and should not have the one under discussion, because they are not likely search terms, not the names by which the events are normally known, and give undue weight to a single interpretation of a more complex event. Guy (Help!) 13:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's an interesting WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but there's no particular policy reason why that would be a redirect disallowed by policy. I think I'll go create it. Jclemens (talk) 18:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ugh, to be frank, that was a rather insulting display of pointy-ness on your part. Please lessen the drama here and delete that Hiroshima redirect; we can't retroactively apply labels to events that predate the present-day notions of terrorism, otherwise we'll get into Terrorist attacks on Custer, Guy Fawkes terrorist incident, and so on. Tarc (talk) 19:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ugh indeed. I've nominated it for RfD as it's not really a plausible or useful search term, and as the redirect was pretty clearly created to make a point. You make a worthwhile point in your !vote below Jclemens, but the tone of your comment and the creation of the Hiroshima redirect don't do you a lot of credit. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • (shrug) Guy brought it up. I see since that point a few even "worse" potential redirects were listed in this discussion, but what you might not be aware of is that there are plenty of applicable RS'es that endorse or refute the position that Hiroshima was a terrorist attack, as you can see in that RfD. WP:POINT is about disrupting Wikipedia; I have instead improved it by adding a redirect, as can be seen by my detailed presentation of sources in that other discussion. If improving Wikipedia lessens my stature in your eyes... well, sorry, but I'm here to write an encyclopedia. Jclemens (talk) 22:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Obviously we disagree about whether or not your addition of a redirect improved Wikipedia, so simply asserting that you improved things does not particularly convince me. Of course we're both here to write an encyclopedia so perhaps the pieties are best left to the side. And I'm quite familiar with the arguments for and against Hiroshima and Nagasaki being construed as state terrorism—the fact that said arguments exist does not militate one way or another in favor of a redirect. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Hiroshima and Nagasaki were acts of war against a nation that declared war on us. Even so, there is no BLP issue there, only a political debate about whether the Allies had the "moral right" to end the war in the Pacific that way. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There have been on-going and disruptive arguments on the Talk:Fort Hood shooting about the topic of labeling this incident as a terrorist attach, and the consensus is to not do so. This redirect seems to be just an end-around this consensus by those pushing the POV that it is a terrorist attack. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 15:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and strike all !votes which reference NPOV, which is not a policy-supported reason for deletion of redirects. Sorry, but the level of knee-jerk silliness in this thread demands that editors with an actual policy clue speak up. Sandstein has it right. Jclemens (talk) 18:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how "I don't like the way other people are voting" is a policy-supported reason for keeping. In the most favorable light of your argument, there is no policy-supported reason to either delete or keep. So we default to consensus. (Note I disagree with this, and there is the obvious BLP problem with calling him a terrorist, but even setting that aside.) ~YellowFives 23:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to explain, then. Saying "Delete, NPOV redirect" is something akin to saying "Delete, article has too many sources". It's nonsensical, because that criterion doesn't apply to that sort of Wikipedia object. Look at WP:R#Neutrality of redirects; non-NPOV redirects are encouraged. Jclemens (talk) 23:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we all know that, but at some point there is a line that gets crossed, Many here seem to feel that the line-crossing happens when the label "terrorist" is used, directly or indirectly, to refer to something that is not classified as a terrorist act, or a person who has not been convicted of terrorism, etc... 0bama and Nobama are popular non-NPOV terms within conservatism as well, but we don't create redirects to the president for them here since that would be going to far into BLP-violating territory. (and please do not pull another Hiroshima on the above links, thanks). Tarc (talk) 23:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Other stuff exists/doesn't exist seems to be the only argument being used here. This is a common term, which is what a redirect is used for. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your one-liners about google hits and "common terms" and such are not terribly convincing, no matter how many times you repeat them. What I wrote above was not a "other stuff" argument", as there is nothing wrong or improper about pointing out popular-but-BLP-violating keywords that are not protected by a redirect's NPOV-exemption. Tarc (talk) 00:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
People don't believe his name is "Nobama," that is completely unrelated to this. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the point, which you appear to be unable or unwilling to respond to. Whether it is a slur of a moniker or a slur or an accusation of a crime, it is in the same WP:BLP-violating territory. Tarc (talk) 12:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who is being slurred? This is a redirect to an act, not a biography of a living person.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The suspect. Do you really need this explained to you over and over? Tarc (talk) 20:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You assert, Tarc, that some line is being crossed. Show me evidence of this line that doesn't rely on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, please. I submit, rather, that the line is simply the demarcation between what policy says and the outcome that you would prefer. I'm willing to be proven wrong--show me this line. Jclemens (talk) 05:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The line crossed is implying someone is a terrorist when they actually have not been convicted or even formally accused of such. That is about as clear as I can possibly make myself here, and if that is not good enough for you, then ask someone else. Tarc (talk) 12:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again (in this discussion, first time I've I ask this of you) I ask, based on the content of the target article, is it 'OK to "call" him a suspected multiple murderer, but not to "call" him a suspected terrorist?' If there's a problem here (and I don't believe it is), it's with the target article, not with a POV-term redirect to it. Jclemens (talk) 17:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Surely the difference is that a bunch of people saw him actually firing the gun, whereas no-one has produced one whit of evidence of terrorism? One term has a reasonable base in fact, the other is flap-jawed speculation. Franamax (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That assertion is a BLP violation. We can say that people allege that they saw him firing the gun, but whether or not the suspect fired the weapon(s) has not been legally established--i.e., by a jury--and then reported as such in RS. Thus, it's just an allegation reported in RS'es, and not substantially different from another allegation, such as that the act was a terrorist attack. Jclemens (talk) 22:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Quite simple really.. WP:RFD#Neutrality of redirects. Since some media portrayed it as a terrorist attack, people will be using this as a search term, and our duty is to the readers, to help them find information. It's a useful redirect and serves its purpose. -- œ™ 10:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*:That the tiniest handful of the fringiest of the fringe have at times called it "terrorism" does not elevate this up to the level of a plausible search term. This isn't being argued against on purely NPOV terms, it is being argued that the concept is virtually unheard of. Tarc (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Striking the earlier reply, I apparently mistook this RfD from the 9th was the absurd "Hiroshima" RfD of the 10th. Tarc (talk) 20:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, per User:OlEnglish. This is an easy call. The argument that this redirect is a violation of NPOV is irrelevant according to WP:RFD#Neutrality of redirects, and thus many "delete" votes here are also irrelevant. The words "terrorist" or "terrorism" are currently used 16 times in the article, because there's much public discussion about the term's relevance to the incident. We don't endorse or suppress, just redirect. —Kevin Myers 04:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin here is a brief summary of the reasons articulated above why this redirect should be kept:
    • BLP issues raised are unconvincing for two reasons: 1) per WP:TERRORIST, calling someone a terrorist is a POV issue, not a BLP issue, and 2) the target article itself uses the word terrorism.
    • POV issues are both acknowledged and irrelevant. POV forks are explicitly expected to be turned into redirects.
    • Stats show that this redirect has been used at least 91 times this month, demonstrating it has been helping lead readers to the real article, which is the sole raison d'etre for a redirect.
    Thus, there are six policy-based keep !votes, and zero !votes for deletion which articulate the proper application of a relevant policy or guideline. Jclemens (talk) 17:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Per WP:TERRORIST" nothing. Nothing trumps WP:BLP, except for office actions. Certainly not a Wikipedia:Words to avoid guideline. That logic makes no sense. If something is a POV problem, it does not follow that this means it is not a BLP problem. They are not mutually exclusive, and in fact a POV problem concerning a living person is one of the most serious forms of BLP problems. Calling someone a terrorist is obviously a BLP violation. This fact is not mitigated but rather emphasized by Wikipedia:Words to avoid, which never implies that it should come before BLP, but instead twice refers the reader to BLP as a matter of special consideration.
  • The target article discusses terrorism, which is appropriate. It does not categorically call this an act of terrorism, which is inappropriate, and which this redirect does.
  • Editors refer to WP:R, a guideline, as though it is more important than the BLP policy. But when a policy and a guideline conflict, the guideline must give way to the policy. There may be merit in POV-fork redirects that do not involve BLP violations. This is clearly not one of those instances.
  • Stats show nothing that is not attributable to the activity at this RFD, and no one is linking to it,[1] but stats are relevant only to the guideline, in any case.
  • And guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive. Even if the BLP problem were not important, editors may come to a consensus that the WP:R style guideline is not pertinent to certain individual cases, as when a disruptive redirect is created just to make a point. If there were no room for consensus-based judgment calls, there would be no AFD, RFD, etc., only CSD.
  • But the BLP policy is important, very important, and the delete !votes here have been based upon both the letter and spirit of that policy, which is clear that the burden is on those who would add content. In response, the keep !votes have the WP:R guideline (as written at WP:R and as rearticulated at the WP:RFD process page, which is not labeled either as policy or guideline). Thus there are at least 9 policy-based deletes, and 0 policy-based keeps. ~YellowFives 18:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is no BLP violation, no one is identified by the redirect. --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've made your assertion, William, and 13 editors were unconvinced. You have been calling Hasan a terrorist all over WP, and this is no exception. If there was a terrorist attack, then someone was a terrorist. You are at minimum calling Hasan a terrorist suspect, but even that is something the FBI has declined to do, so it remains a BLP violation. You've made no new arguments here or at Talk:List of terrorist incidents, 2009, and consensus is still against you there too. ~YellowFives 19:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please comment on the matter at hand. Six editors believe the redirect is appropriate including three straight following fuller discussion. Some reliable sources have labeled the event a "terrorist attack." The FBI is not the only source available. No individual is being connected unless there is an assumption of guilt. --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And 13 believe it is inappropriate. The FBI is the source that has been agreed upon by consensus at every article where you have edit-warred about this, including Fort Hood shooting, Nidal Malik Hasan, and List of terrorist incidents, 2009. The matter at hand is that you created this redirect because the last article had to be fully protected due to your repeated BLP violation. And "terrorist attack" is an assumption of guilt. There can not be a terrorist attack unless someone is guilty of terrorism. ~YellowFives 20:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I only count 11, but remember wikipedia is not a Democracy. Link to the discussion where the FBI is agreed to be the only source used. Again, no individual is named by the redirect, regardless of whether it's a terrorist attack, reliable sources have labeled it as such and this is also a commonly used name for the event. --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My first guess would be that you didn't count me or Wikidemon. You were overruled at Talk:List of terrorist incidents, 2009#Fort Hood shooting where you originally conceived this redirect, as you well remember. There was and is broad consensus there to wait for the word of the investigating authorities. You are calling Hasan a terrorist or a terrorist suspect, that is your sole purpose here, there cannot be a terrorist attack without a terrorist. ~YellowFives 20:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you are correct it is 13, but consensus is not determined by voting. The link you provided above does not specify that the FBI should be considered the only source on this matter. Show where the redirect calls Hasan a terrorist. It does not, it is simply a redirect for a common usage term. Again, please comment on content and not the editors. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am commenting on the content. This content is here because you were frustrated that your edit-warring was unsuccessful, and several other editors right in this discussion agree that a deliberate POV-pushing BLP policy violation should be deleted. The link I provided does demonstrate consensus that we should wait for the conclusion of the investigating authorities. The FBI happen to be the investigating authorities. Obviously if they were to hand the official investigation over to some other department then it would be that department we would wait for instead, but the consensus is explicitly to wait for the official investigation. There can not be a terrorist attack without a terrorist. Hasan is the only suspect named in the target article. You are calling Hasan a terrorist or a terrorist suspect, and this is a BLP violation. The point is that you already made your assertion, over and over and over. Most editors were not convinced by your assertion. Most editors were convinced that there is a BLP problem here. ~YellowFives 21:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no BLP violation if reliable sources back up an assertion, but BLP is not an issue with this redirect, because it makes no assertion. It is simply a common usage term. Again, remember that wikipedia is not a democracy. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a BLP violation if anyone is influenced prejudicially toward Hasan by our actions here, and insinuating that he is a terrorist would be prejudicial. Consensus here and at Talk:List of terrorist incidents, 2009 is that the reliable source we are waiting for is the report of the investigating authorities, and some guy's opinion is not reliable enough to call him a terrorist. You have made your assertion over and over, but you have not achieved a consensus to support you. You assert that this redirect does not call him a terrorist, but consensus here is that it does or comes close enough that we need to err on the side of caution. There can not be a terrorist attack without a terrorist. Hasan is the only suspect named in the target article. You are calling Hasan a terrorist or a terrorist suspect, and this is a BLP violation. If you continue to assert otherwise, then tell us, who committed the "Fort Hood terrorist attack"? ~YellowFives 21:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How can it be a BLP violation when the usage is backed by reliable sources? --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you keep asking the same question over and over when it has been answered for you all over Wikipedia? It is a BLP violation because

Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

Consensus has been that because "terrorist" is such a tremendously prejudicial label, the only source potentially reliable enough for that is the conclusion of the investigating authorities, and not some guy's opinion. You have the discussion of the opinions elsewhere already, but the redirect name can not convey such nuance, so it is a BLP violation while more nuanced discussion might not be. Tell us, who committed the "Fort Hood terrorist attack"? ~YellowFives 22:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, a rationale for deletion from here has not been provided. Which of these would you say applies in this case? --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Several of those rationales for deletion have been provided by other editors in the discussion above, and found convincing by them. I will not speak for them, as I happen to think that they are unnecessary in the face of BLP. WP:R is a guideline, and guidelines are overridden by policy like BLP. Furthermore, that list is not an exhaustive list of possible reasons for deletion, just like the following list is not an exhaustive list of reasons for keeping. Most editors here agree that this is a BLP problem. "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material, and this is especially true for material regarding living persons," and you have not achieved consensus for the addition of this redirect. Who committed the "Fort Hood terrorist attack"? ~YellowFives 22:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop asking the question, "Who committed the 'Fort Hood terrorist attack'?" It is irrelevant to this discussion. No reason has been given for deletion of this redirect and no BLP issue has been established based on the fact that the term is used in reliable sources and does not single out an individual. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple reasons have been given, and you don't like them. The BLP violation has been established to the agreement of most editors, and the burden of evidence is on the editor who would add this content. Consensus has been that your collection of opinions is not sufficient to call this a terrorist attack. The BLP problem is very relevant to this question: who committed the "Fort Hood terrorist attack"? ~YellowFives 23:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't see what you hope to accomplish by repeating that question. It is irrelevant to this discussion. You have shown no evidence that this is a BLP issue, I have already demonstrated that it is not. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is a BLP violation because

Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

Consensus has been that because "terrorist" is such a tremendously prejudicial label, the only source potentially reliable enough for that is the conclusion of the investigating authorities, and not some guy's opinion. "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material, and this is especially true for material regarding living persons," and you have not achieved consensus for the addition of this redirect. You have to convince editors that your collection of opinions is sufficient to call Hasan a terrorist, and you still have failed to do so. That means we default to removing the content, because you did not meet the burden of evidence. You assert that this redirect does not call him a terrorist, but consensus here is that it does or comes close enough that we need to err on the side of caution. There can not be a terrorist attack without a terrorist. Hasan is the only suspect named in the target article. You are calling Hasan a terrorist or a terrorist suspect, and this is a BLP violation. If you continue to assert otherwise, then tell us, who committed the "Fort Hood terrorist attack"? ~YellowFives 23:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it was agreed that this was a BLP violation then the redirect would've been speedily deleted. The only remotely close rationale for deletion is #3. But "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is allowable if it is discussed in the article. The label of the Fort Hood shooting as a terrorist attack is discussed in the article. It mentions no one explicitly in the redirect. But even if it did, the mention of the opinion held that Hasan is a terrorist, is not a BLP violation based on the fact that it is backed by reliable sources.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, sometimes it is necessary to let these discussions play out. In this case there was a question of whether you could achieve consensus for your addition. It turned out the same here as at Talk:List of terrorist incidents, 2009, that opinions are not sufficient for adding the content. Because "terrorist attack" is such a tremendously prejudicial label, the only source widely agreed to be potentially reliable enough for that label is the conclusion of the investigating authorities. You have the discussion of the opinions elsewhere already, but the redirect name can not convey such nuance, so it is a BLP violation while more nuanced discussion might not be. WP:R is a guideline, and guidelines are overridden by policy like BLP. WP:R's list is not an exhaustive list of possible reasons for deletion, just like the following list is not an exhaustive list of reasons for keeping. Most editors here agree that this is a BLP problem. "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material, and this is especially true for material regarding living persons," and you have not achieved consensus for the addition of this redirect. At least nine good faith editors in this discussion object to the content and do not think that your collection of opinions is a sufficient source for this addition. That means WP:BLP requires removal. If you want to show that the redirect can not possibly be a BLP problem for Mr. Hasan, then just answer the question: Who committed the "Fort Hood terrorist attack"? Else, have you finally said what you feel you needed to say? ~YellowFives 00:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fort Hood section break[edit]
There is no consensus at either place, that is why discussion is ongoing. However, consensus seems to be headed toward keep, given the last three comments based on full discussion. You are really stretching to say this is a BLP violation. It is not, it is a commonly used term for an event, a permissible and useful redirect. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no discussion ongoing at Talk:List of terrorist incidents, 2009. Do not mistake your own intransigence for a lack of consensus. A couple of people in a row said one thing or the other. But people have been citing policy for deletion since the beginning, and guidelines for keeping. This trend has not changed. Although consensus here is clearly for deletion, even if it were true that consensus had not been achieved, that would be your problem, because

The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material, and this is especially true for material regarding living persons

and you have not achieved consensus for the addition of this content. ~YellowFives 01:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
William, at Talk:List of terrorist incidents, 2009, even Sanorton, who wants this to be added as terrorism eventually, is telling you to wait for now. Consensus is so clear that even good-faith editors who want the same result as you do are saying that we'll have to wait and defer to the investigating authorities. ~YellowFives 01:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've read all the "fuller discussion" and I'm not buying it. You really should answer the question "who then are the terrorists?" because it tells the whole story of why this is a BLP violation. If this redirect was titled "Allegations of terrorism in the Fort Hood attack" that would be one thing, but as worded it directly implies that an act of terrorism was committed, thus the alleged attacker was a terrorist. Franamax (talk) 01:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think it will accomplish by repeatedly asking irrelevant questions and then belaboring the point? The redirect refers to the act. "Allegations of terrorism in the Fort Hood attack" is not a commonly used phrase, "Fort Hood terrorist attack" is, this label is backed by reliable sources and therefore is immune from any BLP violation. Remember this is a redirect, its purpose is to redirect readers to the proper name. And that is what it accomplishes. It makes no commentary on the issue or suspect. --William S. Saturn (talk) 03:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're wrong. It labels him a terrorist when no such legal determination has been made. BLP trumps RS. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So Bugs, tell me about this legal determination process. Who does it? How long does it take? Do you think that the lack of such a legal determination process prevents Wikipedia from reporting that "X was called terrorism by Y" when such an allegation appears in an otherwise reliable source? How does the fact that redirects do not need to conform to NPOV influence this assertion? Jclemens (talk) 19:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BLP violation is impossible when backed by reliable sources. And legal authorities are not the only source to be considered. Hasan is not mentioned by the redirect. Please remember that this is a redirect, redirects do not label anything anything. --William S. Saturn (talk) 03:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs says it with commendably fewer words than I do, so yeah, what he said. :) The people using this search term will be those looking to find out who the "Fort Hood terrorist" was and get the details of this terrorist attack on American soil - but no such terrorist attack exists! Until it's determined, there is no such thing. There are allegations, that's all. Franamax (talk) 03:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to reliable sources, there is a such thing. --William S. Saturn (talk) 03:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're wrong. No reliable source has determined that this was a terrorist act. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And there is the issue. But reliable sources have been listed above as well as at the talk page of List of terrorist incidents, 2009, I will list them below:

--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those are personal opinions. Until there is a legal determination that it was a terrorist attack, it ain't. This is kind of like the balloon boy hoax. Even though it was perfectly obvious it was a hoax (and much more obvious than your claims with this case), wikipedia could not call it a hoax until there was a legal determination to that effect. Same with this. Just because some guy blows away a bunch of people, and happens to be Muslim, doesn't make it terrorism. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These "personal opinions" are widely held, and come from individuals who have received briefings on the matter. They are all reliable sources. The FBI is NOT the only source available. Example: if Iranian investigators determine an American is a spy, could that American be labeled a spy based on that legal determination, despite outside sources that refute the investigators? --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter. BLP trumps RS. And by the way, there has not even been a determination that the suspect committed a crime, let alone that it was terrorism. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BLP violations cannot occur when content is backed by reliable sources. --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're wrong. There has been no legal determination that the guy has committed any crime, let alone terrorism. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since all valid sources call him the "alleged" shooter, perhaps a redirect from "alleged Fort Hood terrorist attack" would be permissible. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not a commonly used term for usage as a redirect. With that logic the page should be renamed "Alleged Fort Hood shooting."--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The dead people are sufficient evidence that a shooting occurred. What's alleged is the shooter. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You separate the act with the suspected actor in the above post, so why are you connecting the suspected actor to the redirect? --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're asking, but it doesn't matter, as there has been no valid determination that the shootings were a terrorist attack, nor that the guy arrested is the perp. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are disregarding the reliable sources listed above and the concept of common usage. Above you separated the suspected actor from the act on the basis of what is known, yet argue that this redirect is a violation of a living person's biography, which means you are connecting the suspected actor to the act, and therefore contradicting yourself. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't know what you're talking about, but until there is a legal determination that a terrorist attack occurred, wikipedia cannot characterize it that way. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You argued that Hasan is only alleged. But the basis for the argument that the redirect suffers a BLP violation, is that Hasan is connected to and committed the act. You made a valid distinction, "The dead people are sufficient evidence that a shooting occurred. What's alleged is the shooter."--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no question a shooting occurred. There's no valid determination that it was terrorism. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
William, you misunderstand BLP. You have sources that show someone's opinion. That doesn't automatically mean you can use them in just any old way that you'd like. You can have the discussion of the opinions somewhere, but the redirect name can not convey such nuance. That's the same reason that Talk:List of terrorist incidents, 2009 has determined you can not use those same sources to add this incident to the list. The list categorically calls everything on the list "terrorism," and your opinion sources have been determined by consensus to not meet the necessary standard for such a prejudicial label. There can be a BLP violation even with some kinds of sources, if the sources are not used properly and responsibly, because BLP's primary purpose is not to simply protect Wikipedia from libel (though that is important). WP:BLP's primary purpose is to ensure that Wikipedia does not harm living people:

Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

We are required to consider harm, and editors here have determined that labeling this as terrorism sourced on nothing but someone's opinion is likely to be prejudicial and harmful to Mr. Hasan. And the burden of evidence is still upon you to convince them otherwise. There is a BLP violation if anyone is influenced prejudicially toward Hasan by our actions here, and insinuating that he is a terrorist would be prejudicial. You can address the issue of prejudicial harm by simply answering this question: who committed the "Fort Hood terrorist attack"? ~YellowFives 11:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
YellowFives, what you are misunderstanding about "harm" is that if a variety of notable people are calling the attack terrorism, Wikipedia does no harm by repeating such accusations. They already exist; they're already publicized. Wikipedia, in repeating such non-fringe claims does no particular harm to the alleged shooter, even if those prove to be unfounded, because Wikipedia didn't originate or disseminate such views. Yes, redirects may be NPOV, because redirects don't disseminate views; they just redirect people to the NPOV-titled article covering the topic.
And please stop saying the same thing again and again, especially quotes. All of us know what they say, and repeating them ad nauseum is not going to convince anyone else that your particular take on them has merit. Jclemens (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Skip my comments if you don't like them. I will repeat whatever I deem necessary to repeat. If you and William are going to say the same thing over and over again, I am going to save myself the trouble of phrasing my responses differently.
If a variety of notable people are calling the attack terrorism, then we can have the discussion of the opinions somewhere, but the redirect name can not convey such nuance. The redirect calls this terrorism. That is not acceptable. That is not the same as discussing the opinions. It is not necessarily the case that redirects about living people may push a POV. That depends on the potential harm. The WP:BLP policy applies everywhere, and if editors believe that this redirect violates the policy, then the policy comes first. There may be merit in POV-fork redirects that do not involve BLP violations. This is clearly not one of those instances.
You are simply wrong when you say "redirects don't disseminate views". You are refering to a Wikipedia style guideline as though it gave insight into the psychology of readers. In the real world, when someone sees a link that says http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_terrorist_attack they rationally conclude that Wikipedia has an article on the "Fort Hood terrorist attack." ~YellowFives 21:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What the BLP-screaming editors are ignoring is that there is no significant difference between calling someone an alleged murder and calling someone an alleged terrorist. If there really is a BLP issue, all mention of Hassan should be excised from the target article, period. There is no conceivable circumstance where it's OK to call a person a murderer, but not a terrorist. Thus:
    • If it's a BLP issue, Hassan needs to be excised from the target article, and the redirect stays, since everything tying the alleged terrorist attack to a living person named as the alleged shooter is resident in that article, or
    • If it's not a BLP issue, then NPOV issues are unconvincing.
  • In no case is there a justification for deleting this redirect without modifying the target article. You just can't get there from here. Jclemens (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a huge difference between calling someone a terrorist and calling them a murderer. Terrorists are often denied Constitutional rights. The difference is similar to calling the theft of government documents burglery or treason. One of these labels is tremendously more prejudicial, and so requires us to take special care. Citizens are used to murder, and murder is barely news. So juries treat murder as murder, and terrorism as the worst thing ever.
Even taking your broken hypothetical for granted, if there was a BLP problem with calling this murder that would not have any impact on the BLP problem with calling this terrorism. We may be able to get consensus to deal with the worse of the two violations, yet unable to get consensus for the lesser violation. That would not make it okay, but it might be the most that's possible, and the difficulty of dealing with one problem does not mean we should not deal with the easier problem. Otherwise you make the perfect the enemy of the good. ~YellowFives 21:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If terrorists are denied constitutional rights, why is Khalid Sheik Muhammad having a trial in New York? --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Guantanamo military commission: "On September 28 and September 29, 2006, the US Senate and US House of Representatives, respectively, passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006, a controversial bill that allows the President to designate certain people with the status of "unlawful enemy combatants" thus making them subject to military commissions, where they have fewer civil rights than in regular trials." Don't pretend you didn't know this. ~YellowFives 22:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What does that have to do with terrorism? Terrorists are not necessarily "enemy combatants." --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think "terrorist attack" is a reasonable misspelling of "shooting." Shooting is obviously what happened; terrorist attack requires a judgment that hasn't been made. Anyone searching for "Fort Hood attack" is going to get this article anyway. I'm not a huge fan of redirects that take a position ('tho this one beats Saint Pancake). Nathan T 23:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Judgment has been made by reliable sources, see above. NPOV does not apply to redirects. Also, since when is spelling the only reason for redirection? --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've read the debate above, you can probably assume most people registering an opinion here have as well. You don't need to repeat yourself after each vote that disagrees with your own view. Nathan T 23:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How does your reasoning align with the policies of wikipedia? If you cannot answer, then you are simply expressing an opinion, but remember consensus is not a vote. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's no BLP violation. It's a redirect from a widely used serach term. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • CMT I was in the middle of closing this as "delete" when I saw Jclemens threat to BK on his talk page. Am I allowed to close this? Protonk (talk) 02:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question answered, threat is probably the wrong word. Protonk (talk) 02:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Old close I've undone my close, but left:
    • "This is stemming mainly from "when in doubt, don't delete". I've written about three closes for "delete" but haven't convinced myself enough of each of them. The main arguments for deletion are BLP, NPOV and (Effectively) NAME. I'll address them in turn. I'm thoroughly unconvinced by the BLP claims. BLP warns us to avoid extreme or defamatory redirects. This isn't especially defamatory. The shooter is alleged to have killed over a dozen people, our redirecting of "terrorist attack" to "shooting" doesn't suggest that allegation is true ot raise some independent allegation. The distinction between terrorism and mass murder has little to do with the act or the actor and a considerable amount to do with the reaction and the context. Hence the next argument, NPOV. Jclemens notes below that NPOV doesn't apply to redirects except in extreme cases. I grant that, but also note that a heavy preponderance of the voters here seem concerned with a slant in a redirect. This slant comes from what seems to be to be a larger media battle to portray this act as one of terror, not of murder. Difficulties and biases are inherent in such a characterization and it is plainly obvious to me that a battle over that characterization is being waged here. So the redirect itself is deeply worrisome and I'm inclined to believe deletion arguments, even though they don't report the letter of the policy. The last argument, referring to what this incident ought to be named, which sources determine the naming and what-not, is more arcane than useful. Both sides can brandish sources and make pronouncements, but neither will produce a clear line of reasoning when everything else is in flux. My personal opinion is that we shouldn't have a redirect like this, but I am constrained by my ambivalence in weighing votes, the obvious utility of the search term, and the limited applicability of quoted policies. So I will reluctantly close this as "no consensus". I will also make a useless appeal to the parties involved to please grapple with the motivations for calling this a terrorist attack rather than arguing that your POV should be presented in article space or arguing (just as blindly) that BLP somehow demands that we refer to someone as an alleged mass murderer and not a terrorist."
  • As a statement. Protonk (talk) 04:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This has got to be the looniest discussion I've seen in a while. This is an incredibly plausible search term and redirect, and no basis whatever for deleting redirects of plausible search terms based purely on "I don't like it, and if we name it that it's a violation of BLP/NPOV," because it's not named that. Currently, as I write, 115k ghits for "Fort Hood terrorist attack", 17 Gnews hits without needing to reach into the archive [2], and the connection of the shootings with terrorism has been a continuing topic on major newspapers, television, and what seems like every other political blog on the entire net for the past week. RayTalk 04:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Sh2-271[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete as incorrect catalog number. AniMate 03:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect catalog number for the target object. The number in question is assigned to a different object that currently does not appear to have a Wikipedia article.[3] Due to the exacting nature of the catalog number, this incorrect entry is likely to cause confusion by misdirecting anyone looking for the object associated with the number or who mistakenly believes the number is associated with the Flame Nebula. --Allen3 talk 18:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 01:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—it's wrong, the Flame Nebula is Sh2-277 (NGC 2024.) Spacepotato (talk) 05:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

WPT:MoSDab[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Deleted at user request (G7) --Taelus (talk) 23:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - cross-namespace redirect - some prior discussion at User talk:Jerzy#WPT:MoSDab TB (talk) 16:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think i can repair the damage i did, probably today, without collateral damage and without being a distraction here, and in the process get better at avoiding repetitions.
    --Jerzy•t 16:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Controversies related to prevalence of Jews in leadership roles in Hollywood[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Jclemens (talk) 20:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very unlikely search term. It seems that the redirect was created after the deletion of the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversies related to prevalence of Jews in leadership roles in Hollywood, but it is not a useful redirect. The topic is not even mentioned in the target article, Antisemitic canard.  Sandstein  15:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A little unlikely, indeed. Debresser (talk) 16:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why unlikeliness is a problem, given that *someone* used this term to create an article. Also, I was hoping someone would add the old topic to the target article. User:Fences and Windows did a lot of good research about the topic in the deletion discussion, which no one has used. Another possibility is to redirect to another page. --AFriedman (talk) 18:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was an article at that title (among others) because the author attempted to find a NPOV title for the topic, but nobody will enter that into the search box. A likelier search term would be "Jews run Hollywood", or similar, but that might not be an appropriate redirect exactly for NPOV reasons, and it would also require that this topic is covered at the target article.  Sandstein  22:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with adding a redirect to "Jews run hollywood"? Also, to me the solution is simple--keep the redirect and cover the topic at the target article. Would that solution be ok by you? --AFriedman (talk) 23:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, even then it would not be a likely search term and hence a useless redirect.  Sandstein  06:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If we added the topic to the target article, it would meet the redirect criteria of "merge" --AFriedman (talk) 04:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is not a useful searching or linking term for anything other than the content that was formerly here - even then, it is debatable - and the AfD is clear enough that we don't want the content that was formerly here, so this cannot be useful at all. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Convinced by previous comment. I originally created the redirect because the article had some vehement defenders, but it seems like this rationale is no longer applicable. --AFriedman (talk) 02:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is not a search term someone would use. original article title is an attempt to create a NPOV title and article which unfortunately for the creators failed. assuming good faith, id say they gave it their best shot, but it still was too OR and POV to keep here. im curious: does WP keep a list of common search terms that are not WP articles, and periodically review them to see if they deserve redirects?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

World of Warcraft non-notable locations[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading redirect, this is a minor location in the setting of a single game in a series. Under current notability guidelines the location will never be covered in the target article, or in Wikipedia, thus we should not send users hunting for the information by sending them along a string of redirects that will never lead to the information. Taelus (talk) 13:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, merging similar RfDs to avoid the cut+paste spamming of comments in each different redirect which has happened in the past. Feel free to split them again if you disagree with their merging. --Taelus (talk) 13:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as per previous precedents of other minor gaming locations. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 01:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:How THIS IS TO to start a page[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was twice nominated for speedy deletion - first as a nonsensical title, and secondly as housekeeping. I couldn't accept either argument for speedy deletion, but this is certainly a useless redirect. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Virtual CD-ROM Control Panel[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete as article contains no information about redirected term. AniMate 07:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC) *Virtual CD-ROM Control Panel → Microsoft (links to redirect) (stats) [reply]

Delete per Reasons for deletion clause 4: There is no sense in redirecting Virtual CD-ROM Control Panel to Microsoft, as Microsoft article neither contains any information on this subject nor present and evidence of notability for the subject of redirection. Fleet Command (talk) 05:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The reference says: "The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting Apple to Orange.". Apple to Orange does not make sense. Redirecting the name of a Microsoft product to the Microsoft article does make sense. --Hm2k (talk) 20:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:
  1. It only makes sense when Microsoft article has information about said product, not always. Otherwise, no, it is just a weasel wikilink: A wikilink that gives the illusion of importance to one subject without providing notability evidences.
  2. Oh, and by the way, you are the original creator of this redirect.
Fleet Command (talk) 04:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No point in redirecting to an article that has no useful information about the topic. This annoys readers.  Sandstein  06:56, 10 November 2009 (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/2009_November_9&oldid=1140201192"