Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enemy of humanity


 * 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   delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Enemy of humanity

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No indication of notability, WP:OR. This appears to be nothing but a string of words that several people has happened to use, and one editor has started cataloguing those instance; there's no evidence of discussion of this phrase in reliable sources. Furthermore, the creators' motives for putting together this page are questionable, he has admitted that he put it together as an excuse to group Richard Dawkins with people like Adolf Hitler and Fidel Castro, and Richard Dawkins is one of User:NBeale's academic "opponents" in real life (see search results here, and particularly posts like this, in which he both canvassed off-wiki to get "keep" votes for an autobiography at AfD and in which he suggested that any editor deleting his autobiography is a "Dawkins Defender"; clearly this editor is not in any position to be using Wikipedia as a soapbox to criticize his perceived opponents). r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 15:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete: As WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. That said, it did give me quite a laugh in the bare-faced shamelessness of its attempt to equate Dawkins with Hitler.  It's quite a feat to run straight off the blocks into Godwin's law.  Nice work NBeale.  --P LUMBAGO  15:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep FWIW User:Rjanag has quite a history of WP:Wikihounding me but even so it's quite impressive to AFD an article within 1 hour of its creation and with no discussion at all. The user who PROD-ed it did so because he said I was attacking the Pope, Rjanag says I am attacking Dawkins, but all I am doing is recording the various uses of this term which will enable, given time, a sensible and balanced article to be created. There are 484k GHits and masses of use of the phrase in RS.  Give some time and don't be so absurdly trigger-happy.  To AfD an article within an hour of its creation without discussion is against policy. (and here come the usual suspects) NBeale (talk) 15:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, even less is it a dictionary of three word expressions. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If kept we obviously need an article on Friend of humanity as well. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete as a page with no meaningful content other than as an attack on various people named therein. Suitable material for a bigot's blog, but not for Wikipedia. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 16:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - it's a turn of phrase. No encyclopedic significance. Might as well list all notable users of any idiomatic phrase such as "the best thing since sliced bread". PamD (talk) 16:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. NBeale's antics are always fun to follow, and while I am not opposed to a not-overly-promotional biography of Nicholas Beale on Wikipedia, I see no hope for this article. Of course, I am more than happy to change my mind if someone can produce a couple sources with significant coverage of this phrase, i.e., a sources that "address the subject directly in detail", as WP:N would require. Forget about the detail, actually, I'd just like to see NBeale acknowledge the difference between using a phrase and directly addressing it, e.g., the way a linguist, sociologist, or historian might. Are any of these sources about the phrase, NBeale? (Oh, and I did try to search for sources on google scholar, but the machine will return usages of the phrase rather than articles about it. It seems that google scholar much like NBeale does not distinguish between usage and coverage of a phrase.) Vesal (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. I have just come across Enemy of the people, which has been around for over 6 years. If there is any useful content in Enemy of humanity, it should surely be added to that article. But no, that does not mean I'm in favour of using that article as yet another platform to indulge a certain editor's fondness for being rude about Dawkins. And I'm doubtful if the phrase "enemy of humanity" has enough currency as a likely-to-be-sought-for phrase to merit a redirect. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 16:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete The object seems to be to make a list of every time someone has been described with that exact sequence of words, which wouldn't be that difficult to cobble together by typing the phrase into google.  So far as I can tell, none of these instances of one person calling another an "e.o.h." has been notable.  Even the page for the more common enemy of mankind redirects to Hostis humani generis, but I don't see a point in making this a search term. Mandsford 16:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment There are already over 18k GHits on the Dawkins instance, and according to Google News there are "127 related" reports of the Castro instance, "757 related". So in what way can thee be considered not notable? NBeale (talk) 09:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply The fact that Dawkins described Mr Ratzinger as an "enemy of the people" may be notable, but that does not make the phrase itself notable. See comment by Vesal above. Where are the sources discussing the phrase, as opposed to simply using it? SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 10:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well there is an entire book "Enemies of humanity: the nineteenth-century war on terrorism" and a substantial article in a learned journal "Enemy of Humanity: The Anti-Piracy Discourse in Present-Day Anti-Terrorism" both of which I have added to the article as references. This article now has far more RS references than the ones which are proposed as redirects.  And it is only a couple of days old. NBeale (talk) 13:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you read a word of any of the deletes here? We're not looking for more random books that happen to have this phrase in their title; we're looking for sources that discuss the use of the phrase in an academic way. You and your supporters already have a reputation for piling random useless sources and passing mentions into articles just to make them look fuller (any third-party observers, just see Articles for deletion/Nicholas Beale (5th nomination) and search for terms like "puffery" and "passing mention"), don't do it again here. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> (talk) 13:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sigh, NPA please (but then isn't this why you made such a rapid AfD?). We have an entire academic book and an entire article in an academic journal which are explicitly devoted to this concept. We also have a vast number of WP:RS for the use in these notable instances. And it is a term extensively discussed in the academic and legal literature.  NBeale (talk) 13:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Crying NPA again? What part of my above message could possibly be construed as a personal attack? Calling your sources "useless"? Sorry, but I refuse to be guilt-tripped by whining about NPA from someone who only cares about NPA when he's the one who feels "attacked", but who doesn't mind jumping on the bandwagon when an editor he doesn't like is the subject of one (17:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC) and 19:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)). When your talk page and numerous AfDs (including this one) are full of people saying how appalled they are at your COI editing practices and all you can do is whine that meanies are attacking you, then clearly you are the one who needs to remove the beam from your eye. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> (talk) 14:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This is an irrelevant ad hominem argument. Question is, has the author done enough to show that the article should be kept? IMHO no. Does anyone else stand up for it? No. Do lots of completely independent editors think it should be deleted? Yes. andy (talk) 14:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete for every reason you can imagine: dicdef, POV, attack, OR and so on. andy (talk) 16:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete To quote Wikipedia is not a dictionary, "Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, or a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc.; whereas a dictionary article is primarily about a word, an idiom or a term and its meanings, usage and history." By that standard, this article -- which is nothing more than a list of examples of the usage of a common idiomatic phrase -- belongs at Wiktionary, not here. Jimmy Pitt   talk  16:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete In agreement with the balance of the above.  Wiki Dao  &#9775;  (talk)  18:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. OR and in particular a SYN violation. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 21:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete SYN violation. Spatulli (talk) 22:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge into Crimes against humanity. See Enemies of humanity. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: the subject has a lot more to do with Enemy of the people than Crimes against humanity, as per Snalwibma's comments above. andy (talk) 09:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, enemy of the people is a political term rather like traitor - an opponent of a particular state rather than humanity in general. Crimes against humanity or enemy of mankind seem better targets in that they refer to offenses which are especially repugnant to all civilised states - slavery, genocide, piracy, terrorism &c.  They are well-established concepts in law and a reader who is searching using the title in question is likely to want one or both of these topics. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Sorry, that's no good here. NBeale is after a definition that allows him to lump Richard Dawkins in with Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot.  It's no good if it only covers trifles like slavery, genocide, piracy or terrorism - it's got to have "militant atheism" somewhere in there as well.  --P LUMBAGO  11:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Well at least it is clear that the reason many editors want this article deleted is because it is by NBeale, rather than on the merits of the case :-). What NBeale might or might not want is neither here nor there. I can see no obvious objection to merge/redirect Enemy of humanity with Enemy of mankind - in most languages they would be synonymous I think. Though we should then have "hostis humani generis" as a sub-article of Enemy of mankind, since the Latin tag is a bit of a bizzaire way to have the main title (and anyway it literally means "enemy of the human race"). BTW whatever Dawkins may be accusing the Pope of it is not "militant atheism". NBeale (talk) 12:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - Original essay. —Carrite, Sept. 24, 2010.
 * Hi Carrite. I'm a multiply published author. If I wanted to write an "original essay" I'd do a much better job :-). Seriously, Enemy of mankind could perhaps be said to be an "original essay", very few refs, a lot of opinion. This isn't an essay at all. It is a collection of impeccably referenced notable facts. Which some people don't like, by an editor that some people don't like, and against whom Rjanag has a long-running Wikihounding campaign. That is why it is likely to be deleted.  Mob rule, not policy. What a pity.  What an abuse of admin status. NBeale (talk) 15:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh my! Not merely an author, not just a published author, but a multiply published author. That makes you sound so incredible, and I mean that in the truest sense of the word. Mtiffany71 (talk) 22:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete as per Plumbago. Edward321 (talk) 03:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

NBeale has once again posted on his blog asking his readers to come to this AfD. And he is still spouting about how anyone who deletes his article must be a "Dawkins Defender". <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> (talk) 14:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Please do not abuse your admin privileges yet again to mislead and make personal attacks. I do not ask my readers to come to the AfD. And if you can't see the difference between "the Dawkins Defenders are doing X" and "everyone who does X is a Dawkins Defender" then what on earth did you learn at your university? NBeale (talk) 15:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC
 * Here you go again with your nonsensical whining. How is the above message an abuse of admin privileges (where have I used my admin tools at all here?)? How is pointing out your own blog post a "personal attack"? I think you just have a rolodex of stock complaints ("personal attack", "abuse of admin privileges", "i am famous", etc.) that you pull out whenever you're not getting your way.
 * And by the way, your post specifically calls me a "Dawkins Defender" (by saying this AfD was started by "one of them"), regardless of the fact that I didn't even know who Dawkins was before I started seeing your disruption around this project, and I still don't give two hoots who he is. Again, like I said above: you have a habit of trying to discredit everyone who opposes you as a "Dawkins Defender", and refusing to face the clear fact that your behavior around this project has major problems. For at least a year now multiple editors have noted this problem, but you still have the delusion that scores of other editors have a problem and you don't. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> (talk) 18:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sigh! Can you explain in what sense accusing someone of "spouting", "nonsensical whining" and saying "you have the delision" (etc.. ad nauseam) confirms to WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA? You have already been told off at least once on the Admin Notice Board for this kind of blatant violation of these fundamental policies, and probably we will have to re-visit this. Admins are suppsoed to understand and exemplify WP policies. Furthermore every single substrantive item of your nomination in thie AfD is either false or an irrelevant ad-hominem attack.  You have a long history of wikihounding me and even nominating the artilce within 1 hr of creation as a stub is against policy. You are skilled at getting your own way on Wikipedia but this does not make your behaviour right. NBeale (talk) 18:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ad hom or not, Rjanag has made some solid points relating to WP policies whereas NBeale has no other strong arguments for keeping this article other than disparaging the motives of anyone who is against it, on the basis that if they're against it their motives must be suspect. How about some real counter arguments to the claims of OR, SYNTH, RS and so on? andy (talk) 20:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

< Comment So we can agree that Rjanag should stop these personal attacks, and that whether he and others do not like the author and impute bad motives for the article should be irrelevant. Let's look at the substantive claims:
 * 1) RS Every statement in the article is sourced to reliable sources (unlike many/most long-established articles including the one that people want to merge this with, which no-one has ever suggested should be deleted). There are many many references to these instances and they are all by pretty notable persons. In addition the concept of "enemy of humanity" has been extensively discussed in the academic literture, including at least one book and one substantial article devoted to it.
 * 2) There is no element of OR or WP:SYN. The article makes no claims at all about any connection between for example the people who use this trope. If the article were to say "the people who say this are all X" or "we can therefore deduce Y" then such a statement could be reverted as OR/SYN unless we could find a WP:RS to which we could attribute this comment.  But in no version of the article I have seen are any such statements made.
 * 3) Even if there were parts of the article which were OR, SYN or not RS, the solution would be to improve the article by amending or removing these parts. They are not reasons for deleting an article. NBeale (talk) 21:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, there is OR/SYN, and claims are made about the connection between the people. Note the first sentence: "An Enemy of humanity is a person, entity or group of persons who, in the opinion of the speaker or author, has a widespread and extremely negative effect on the rest of the human race." Until a unified concept of what an "enemy of humanity" is, and examples of persons using the phrase in the same way can be sourced, the article is not useful for any purpose, and even harmful, BLP wise, to Dawkins among others. Quigley (talk) 22:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Nobody, except NBeale himself, seems to want this article, so it will probably be deleted. I find this worrying. I do not like the article and I do not like what seem to be the implications. But when I was in University and studied philosophy, my social philosophy professor dicussed with us the rationale of the Inquisition. It opened my mind to implications I had not previously thought about (and is that not what philosophy is about, in general). I am a great admirer of Richard Dawkins, I have read most of his books and I think he can explain complex matter in a very effective way. But as he once explained himself, he is not God. And I disagree with some of his statements, although I understand them. It is the same with this article. I would like to be able to discuss it before it is deleted. But I will probably not have the chance. Pity. Sometimes you are better informed by an article, sometimes you will be wiser. -- JHvW  (talk)   18:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.    Snotty Wong   express 15:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per WP:SNOW.   Snotty Wong   communicate 15:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you give us the reason you think the article should be kept, rather than just your life story? That will make it easier for the reviewing administrator to evaluate your input. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> (talk) 18:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The article makes uncomfortable suggestions. But that is not a reason for deleting it. -- JHvW  (talk)   18:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Nor is it a reason for keeping it. andy (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Goodbye. Oh and by the way, two final remarks. The remark that an administrator is abusing his powers (by NBeale) is correct (as I have found out by posting the only Keep argument), the other is that in the NBeale post, NBeale keeps referring to Asberger when it should be Asperger. I have no stomach for this discussion as I do not believe this is what Wikipedia is about but constitutes hate mongering. Do not worry, no more big words from me. I am about to retire from Wikipedia. --JHvW (talk) 19:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you care to explain what you mean by "an administrator is abusing his powers"? This is a serious accusation and shouldn't be thrown around lightly (don't learn from NBeale). If I have abused my admin tools on you, please provide links or diffs to show what I've done. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> (talk) 21:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (As a side note...where has anyone talked about Asperger syndrome here, under any spelling?) <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> (talk) 21:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem with people who are stuck in policy and guidelines is that they forget what they were about. But in answer to your question. I have never suggested that you were the administrator misusing his powers but I find it interesting that you should think so (smoke and fire etc.). As Wikipedia policy is about civility and assuming good faith I will deal with this administrator myself if I feel this is an appropriate course of action. This discussion is an AfD debate. As to your question about the spelling problem: one of the contributors to this debate suggested looking at the NBeale post (as is clearly stated), in that post (which you have obviously not looked at) there is a spelling problem (intentional or not). You are wasting my time. As I am wasting yours. Stick to the issues in this debate without trying to resort to hate. As I no longer consider myself a member of this community, you will understand that my signature will come from an Autobot (JHvW, in case anyone cares).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.160.198.125 (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing out this discussion on my (no longer existing) talk page. I find it interesting that you have decided to roll this part of the discussion up. For two reasons. First, I made my keep statement when I was still an active contributor. I feel that questions that were subsequently asked should be answered as part of the debate. It has nothing to do with my decision to leave Wikipedia (although rolling this discussion up might suggest otherwise). Secondly the fact that I am no longer an active contributor to Wikipedia should not discount my original !vote (which was made when I was an active contributor). But there is one thing that I would like to point out (as this seems to be an off topic disussion). Have you thought about the reason why NBeale has posted this article? Is he interested in the contents of the article or in the ensuing deletion debate? If the article is deleted, it will be lost. The AfD debate, however will be archived. For a professor in social philosophy this is interesting stuff. If you keep the article that says something about Wikipedia. But the AfD debate also says something about the community. Either way the contributor will get the fodder he was after. As I am no longer an active contributor I feel I am in a position to make a few remarks that to some may seem to be humorous (although I am perfectly serious). One of the contributors to this discussion has observed that "enemy of" is a rather generic term. Why not write articles like "Enemy of Wikipedia" (I have already sourced this, should make a good article) or "Enemy of French fries" (maybe a little more facetious but when properly sourced another interesting article: watch "Pulp fiction" if you have not already seen it). Wikipdedia has a lot going for it, remember what it's targets are! And if you have forgotten: Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and, as a means to that end, an online community of people interested in building a high-quality encyclopedia in a spirit of mutual respect. I can not help but reference an expression from popular culture: "live long and prosper". --JHvW (talk) 00:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete: The phrase is entirely the invention of the author, possibly to denigrate Richard Dawkins, and active harm to that living person may be done by keeping the article in this state without any reliable sources. The quotes from people also uttering the same three letters in succession is meaningless, because they all mean different things. This article is insalvageable synthesis and libel, regardless of the author, whose self-promotion and distractions from the substance of the policy should be ignored. Quigley (talk) 22:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment on what conceivable basis can the phrase "enemy of humanity" - which has 539k GHits, can be traced in Google News back to 1883, and is the translation of a Latin Tag, be said to be my invention?? NBeale (talk) 23:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "after dinner" has more ghits than that. Random numbers from google don't prove notability; see WP:GOOGLE. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> (talk) 23:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * They do however prove that the phrase is not an invention NBeale. :-). NBeale (talk) 10:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Calling someone the enemy of humanity, the enemy of reasonable people, the enemy of America, or even the enemy of french fries, all get Google results. It isn't an expression, its just someone stating their opinion, such as "the car as ugly" which gets 29,600 Google hits.   D r e a m Focus  07:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment No really, this is a well established term with a clear cluster of meanings that go back to Cicero. Please read the article. NBeale (talk) 10:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Regarding Quigley's concerns about libel, I did a quick search for other people than Dawkins who have used the same phrase, and can you imagine the irony: lots of Israelis, including David Ben Gurion, have used the phrase "enemy of humanity" about Hitler. For the article, I added a source discussing a well-respected German author who actually seems to have developed the concept of an "enemy of humanity". While this is not enough to rescue the article, maybe we can be less worried about the ad Hitlerum attack on Dawkins. Vesal (talk) 09:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Versal. Thanks. I think with this very helpful ref we can formulate the lead of the article so that it only depends on Reliable Sources. I have restructued it accordingly. I would urge every unbiased editor who is interested to look afresh at this article, which now has 19 refs and is the work of 4 Editors, whereas the original stub (AfDd within an hour of its creation) had just 5 refs and was the work of 1 author. NBeale (talk) 23:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Still ad hom, I'm afraid. Many articles with contested prods or speedies go to AfD quickly, so that's irrelevant. Also the assumption must be that every editor who contributes to an AfD is unbiased unless proved otherwise - your personal beef against one editor can't be allowed to contaminate everyone who agrees with him. Let's stick to the facts, and in this case we see an editor who says "this is not enough to rescue the article" which you seem to interpret as meaning the exact opposite. Please deal with the points raised in the nomination and by the overwhelming number of editors who have !voted for deletion rather than continuing to argue that the article ought to be retained because there is a conspiracy against you. andy (talk) 00:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not ad. hom. to point out that putting up an AfD within 1 hr is against policy. The present article has more than 2x as many refs for its length than the current FA, and is certainly neither OR nor SYN. As fair-minded editors will I hope accept. NBeale (talk) 17:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Where is the policy that states that an article should not be referred to AfD within an hour of its creation?
 * Where are these "fair-minded editors"? Are you hoping to round them up by canvassing on your blog? Are you suggesting that none of the independent people who have contributed to this debate, not one of whom agrees with you, is fair-minded?
 * Please explain how the number of references you have managed to stuff the article with has any bearing on its inherent value as an encyclopaedia article. On second thoughts, don't bother. <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 20:25, 30 September 2010 (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.