Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Hellenism


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 11:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Hellenism

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Oh, not again. One of those dreaded "Anti-X'ism" articles. And just as WP:OR as most others.

The case against this article was made months ago on its talk page (Talk:Anti-Hellenism). Instead of seeking deletion, some editors chose the option of radically reducing the article to a sub-stub dealing only with one meaning of the term that seemed most sourceable and was unrelated to the "ethnic discrimination" topic. However, the article has been the object of a slow revert-war ever since, with the long OR version repeatedly being reinstated, although no substantial arguments in its favour other than "don't erase content!" was ever produced.

Just to reiterate the objections that have been made time and again. The problem with this article is not the sourcing of the individual facts it reports. Of course there have been people at various times in history who have displayed or expressed dislike of Greeks. And of course other people criticising the former have employed terms like "anti-Greek" or "anti-Hellenic" to describe them. Ancient Judaeans disliking Hellenistic tyranny; Romans disliking Ancient Greek culture; Turks disliking Greeks in 1950s Istanbul; Western media critical of Greek expansion in the early 20th century; Romanians disliking their Greek Phanariot overlords in the early 19th century; Latins disliking Byzantines in the Middle Ages; 20th-century Americans giving preference to their Turkish allies over their Greek ones; proponents of "Afrocentrism" jealous of Greece's perceived monopoly of grand cultural heritage. Of course that's all sourceable. The point is: There is no scholarly literature (WP:RS) that discusses all these disparate historical situations as part of a single story, a single unified pattern or phenomenon. The article commits OR by constructing "a novel narrative" from these unrelated instances.

So, please, no "keep" arguments along the line of: "But I know people who are anti-Greek! It exists!" or "But I found the term 'Anti-Greek' on Google!". Only thing that counts is reliable sources systematically discussing "Anti-Hellenism" as a constant, unified pattern over the centuries. And no "keep" arguments along the line of: "Yeah, it's unsourced now, but just keep it around and ultimately someone will improve it!" It's been around for two and a half years, and no reliable sources have been found in all this time because they evidently don't exist. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete With no RS, it is OR, and does not belong here. The subject of the article may exist, however the article itself does not adhere to guidelines. the_undertow talk  09:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Question: I'm sure there are Greek extremists or fanatics or conspiracy theorists or whatever that publish this stuff in comprehensive ways (I can think of one at least). Although these would not qualify as reliable sources (much like those of a hoax wouldn't), could we sort the article to attribute these lists to them and criticize them? (And more importantly, is there anyone up for it?) NikoSilver 10:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess you'd need yet another set of reliable sources to source the criticism to, wouldn't you? So, it's back to square one... Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I was suggesting that the RS were directed on the criticism of the individual claims (which is mostly true already), while the WP:SYN would be eliminated by the non-RS conspiracy theorists. If it was stated as such (i.e. "compiled by extremist sources"), then I think it would be less of a borderline case. The criticism does not have to be compiled as well. I'm not saying I can do it, I'm just saying it could be done, and "keeping" should be conditional on that, of course. Also, may I suggest that the stub remains until this is done? (the history may be needed for references once the compilation issue is solved). NikoSilver 12:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: even if it were properly sourced from the beginning to the end, it would fail WP:SYN for a lightyear. Other than that, I have little to add to the excellent nomination. Duja ► 10:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Is your pessimists' book not itself a piece of anti-Hellenism and romanticism? Is it not itself something "equally intoxicating and befogging," in any case a narcotic, even a piece of music, German music? Very notable concept, but not one that Wikipedia can conceivably address appropriately.  Stammer 14:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Just for clarification - if anybody wants to write an article on this philosophical-aesthetic concept of "(Anti-)Hellenism", that will of course be highly welcome. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Though it is a topic that I can certainly see as having a place on wikipedia, unless we can find RS it should not be here. On another note, this may be a great topic for some PhD out there (hint hint) -- Kimon talk 15:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. The perception of anti-Hellenism is an element, not pervasive, but not negligible either, of the cultural and political debate in modern Greece. Couldn't that be a legitimate topic for an article here? Provided, it goes without saying, that it can be appropriately sourced, as I surmise it could. A substantial rewrite of the current article might be a starting point. Stammer 15:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it would be legitimate if sourceable, but I'm skeptical - in fact, this is exactly what the original author of the article seemed to be trying to do, but this is the result. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I would find it an interesting article, however it seems problematic to have 'a perception of X' without a credible article on 'X' for general referencing. the_undertow talk  19:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I am speculating here, but I suppose that some respected "liberal" Greek opinion-maker may have addressed the issue in some article, which could be sourced, mentioning egregious examples of "perception of anti-Hellenism" in the nationalist press. Or, alternatively, since nationalists are not necessarily stupid, a rightist Greek writer may have spelled it out lucidly in some essay. That could be a starting point. Actually I remember reading about such "perceptions of anti-Hellenism" in various newspapers when John Paul II visited Greece. I know too little about modern Greece to do more than speculate, but in Russia there is an analogous syndrome, think of Shafarevich's Russophobia, which has deep cultural and historical roots. Needless to add, it is also politically influential. Stammer 20:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Why 'liberal?' the_undertow talk  00:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I mean someone close to Wikipedia's mainstream views, someone that could pass as NPOV describing the phenomenon from the outside.Stammer 03:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's been so long, being a native of Orange County, California that I have seen the word 'liberal' used in its denotation (free of prejudice), that I felt compelled to ask. Thanks for answering, as my question was not meant (and I don't think it was taken) to be anything other than an honest query. the_undertow talk  06:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete serious POV pushing. --Bachrach44 19:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete this violation of WP:OR. IZAK 01:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete fully agree with the nominator, these "Anti-X'ism" articles are, IMHO, without doubt one of the most embarassing things of wikipedia.--Aldux 12:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I disagree. If the information is properly sourced, is not OR and is presented in a NPOV, it is something that should indeed be included in wikipedia. See Anti-Semitism. Unfortunately, this article does not meet this criteria and that is why it should be deleted. -- Kimon talk 13:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.