I've written about how I first became aware of the entry here and I posted an exact (as possible) copy of the page with the links. Well one of the links went to the discussion as to whether or not the entry should be deleted. They must have a got a few hits from this because they then posted this notice:
Please note that none of the links in the facsimile page work. They are internal to Wikipedia and don't travel well.
 | ATTENTION! If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum pointing to this page, please note that this is not a vote. This is a discussion among Wikipedia editors and is aimed at reaching a consensus on whether the article is suitable for this encyclopedia. The outcome of AfD nominations are primarily determined by the quality of arguments for or against deletion; the process is immune to ballot-stuffing or Meatpuppetry. You can participate in the discussion and post your opinions here, even if you are new. Deletion is based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, so please take a look at them if you have not already. For more information, see Wikipedia deletion policy. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! |
Then you get all the fun and games as to why it should be deleted or why it shouldn't. I received a comment below the earlier post as follows:
Mark's Blog is simply neonazi rubbish in politically correct faux radical language. Moreover Mark rarely if ever allows anyone but himself to post to his blog as most threads are long lists of Mark commenting to Mark about Mark. It wouldn't amaze me if Mark 'discovered' his own blog on Wiki as yet another weak effort at self promotion.That one has been deleted, in fact it was deleted before I saw it.
Here are the comments that do appear. Now see if you can tell who is an official editor and who isn't.
Not notable as defined in WP:WEB#Criteria_for_web_content William Avery 17:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)So, there it all is for now. I must say that I have some sympathy with the lack of notability argument. It's not that notable. But some of the arguments in favour of it remainining are strong. Also, the lack of notability thing means that entries will be tilted in favour of establishment takes on issues. Further, what was that Avery chap on about "tilting at windmills" and "poisonous cloud." And you see his soothing rejection of the "libel" post. Not quite like the slaps he delivered to the new joiners in favour of keeping Jews sans frontieres on board.
Delete, nn notable per nom.--John Lake 17:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete, fails WP:WEB. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 20:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete as it fails WP:WEB but props for having a cool name. GassyGuy 22:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete WP:WEB,WP:VER,WP:NOR Ste4k 22:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)This blog has engaged with many mainstream media figures in the UK (such as Nick Cohen and Linda Grant), is reasonably well-visited, and has won some notability on account of it. Please keep —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.138.236.207 (talk • contribs) .
I think this blog is well worth reading, and having an article on it on wikpedia is a good idea - it is fairly well visited, and noteworthy.
Comment added by new user user:Greg Potemkin. (Since you only registered today Greg we forgive you for not signing your comment). Congrats on finding your way so quickly to AfD. William Avery 07:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Some examples of engagement with media figures: Nick Cohen; Linda Grant; Engage. Also worth noting that the blog was referenced in the Jewish Chronicle (ordinarily very hostile to anti-Zionist output). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.143.175.35 (talk • contribs) .
All references back to the blog itself, which doesn't make it notable, just proves he likes to tilt at windmills; just as he writes to the Guardian regularly. William Avery 07:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete Jewssansfrontieres has been the subject of complaints re libel. The blogger has accused Guardian journalist of inventing material in a national newspaper, for which he has supplied no evidence. Violation of copyright laws. Frequently throws around accusations based on speculation. Unreliable material based on pursuit of personal vendettas. WP:VER Rob Foster
Welcome to another new user, Robfoster. The question at hand is really one of notability, rather than trustworthiness. William Avery 13:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete WP:WEB - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete - non-notable, non-verifiable, non-NPOV, non-encyclopedic Nesher 15:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)Delete per WP:WEB --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 15:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I just don’t think the argument that the site tilts at windmills is fair or accurate. Jews sans frontieres criticises and exposes the arguments of prominent political, media and academic figures : E.g. Prof Dershowitz, The Jewish Chronicle, Nick Cohen, Jonathan Freedland and David Aaronovitch. Some of the posts are extremely well argued and not found elsewhere. The post on David Aaronvitch’s column on Galloway's libel trial for example identifies what can generously be described as a series of mistakes, distortions and omissions. I think the site is polemical and sometimes hits hard and could be more charitable to some of its targets, but I think the Guardian columnist seemed to be practising a bit of dishonesty. Personally I think generosity to opponents is important, but not everyone shares this view. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Patrickmurphy (talk • contribs) .
Another new user joining the debate. William Avery 18:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep - It's a noteworthy blog since it has been cited many times. It passes the "Search engine test" and Alexa internet shows it to have a high traffic rank [1]. If it's to be deleted, then so should some of these blogs Lordb 19:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
"Traffic Rank for jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.com: 1,314,683" i.e. not in the top million. William Avery 20:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Clearly there are some people who wish to see the Jewsansfrontiere blog deleted, not it isn't newsworthy, interesting, provocative etc. but because a Jewish anti-Zionist perspective is unacceptable to them. What they are seeking is censorship of views unpalatable to themselves. Hence the reference to libel, designed to scare the children but a nonsense nonetheless. If the site was libellous it would already have been sued.
My understanding is that the Wikipaedia site is going the same way as most media in the United States or affected by the latter. That is why Noam Chomsky can't get a hearing in US papers but is feted in Britain or why the NYT praises veritable forgeries, Dershowitz (Case 4 Israel), Lynn Peters (From Time Immemorial) and then refuses any response, so these forgeries are exposed in Britain and, yes, Israel. The deletion of this page, which is acknowledged as a place where healthy debate takes place, will be at the urging of those to whom censorship is second nature. In Israel they'll lock you up for it, on Wikipaedia they'll only delete what you say. The principle remains the same.
And yes, if Wikipaedia is going to fulfill its function it has to take on board different perspectives including an anti-Zionist Jewish perspective, which Jewssansfrontiere does very well.
Tony Greenstein —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tonygreenstein (talk • contribs) . users third edit [2]
You seem to be under the misapprehension that it is deletion of the blog itself that is being debated here. The question is whether it is sufficiently noteworthy to have an encyclopedia article of its own. The blog will still be referenced as an external link in the article Anti-Zionism. William Avery 07:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep Sufficiently noteworthy. --Daniel575 12:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep I'm researching Israel-critical Jewish groups in Britain. This blog is a central jumping off point to many of the debates within British Jewry, and a useful distillation of media on the issue.David L 13:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC) users first edit [3]
Delete per nom. I'm glad the blog is useful to those readers, but it's not notable enough for an article in an encyclopedia. Tychocat 14:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep Deleting this page would mean another blow to democracy and freedom of speech. Mark Elf's website is a lighthouse of unbiased and honest news. There is a bunch of zionists who want his blog and hence this WIKI entry removed to shut people up. This is called censorship! Kotovasii 17:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
If you come to the Wikipedia interested in Anti-Zionism you look at that article and will find a useful external link to the blog there. Nothing is being censored. William Avery 15:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)William, I am referring to Internet freedom of speech not WIKI’s. But I think that given the amount of hits his web site generates it is very much noteworthy, especially when compared to the amount of rubbish which gets through to the WIKI. Kotovasii 18:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
It would be a great pity if this blog were deleted, particularly when others equally 'un-noteworthy' remain listed. As a comment states above: the blog has definitely been acknowledged by the Jewish Chronicle and (I believe) the blog round-up in the Saturday Guardian. I think this qualifies it as noteworthy. - John E Richardson. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.109.110.86 (talk • contribs) .
Mere acknowledgement or inclusion in round ups of what blogs are saying doesn't make it notable, See WP:WEB. If substantial articles had been written about about it or it were carried in full that would make it notable. As the recent additions have shown, this article consists of a pointlessly thin portion of factual content (author, raison d'etre) which can all be seen by going to the blog itself, and a poisonous cloud of unencyclopaedic POV from Zionists and Anti-Zionists. William Avery 17:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Let's have that post again:
Jewssansfrontieres has been the subject of complaints re libel. The blogger has accused Guardian journalist of inventing material in a national newspaper, for which he has supplied no evidence. Violation of copyright laws. Frequently throws around accusations based on speculation. Unreliable material based on pursuit of personal vendettas.The sign off was by a "Rob Foster." Now I have only ever been accused of libel by one Guardian journalist and that was all explained here. I'm not sure about the copyright violation unless it's about someone saying I'm not allowed to refer to something that they had placed in the public domain. I explained all that here. And I'm not sure about accusations based on speculation. I wonder if this is anything to do with the Alf Green debacle where a hostile commentor used the same IP as the Engage website Managing Editor, Alexandra Simonon. An IP address is fairly hard evidence. Two people could use the same IP but then I did write to both Alf Green and Alexandra Simonon and neither replied. Or maybe the reference is to someone using the name Baruch Spinoza to accuse me of "self-loathing sophistry" when that same person came to my blog from Nick Cohen's password protected tracker. I wrote to Nick Cohen to see if he could explain it and he denied it but without an explanation what am I to think?
That comment by Rob Foster, though her real name is fairly obvious, is pretty damn libellous itself
No comments:
Post a Comment