Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of political epithets (2)


 * 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 07:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

List of political epithets
This is an article whose encyclopedic value is questionable. It includes almost each and every political affiliation, converted to an epithet on the basis of mostly minority viewpoints that consider them such. A POV magnet of the worst kind. The main problem is that by including a certain term as an epithet, we are asserting it that as a fact, without the possibility of presenting competing viewpoints about the use of these terms. NPOV is not possible, regardless of the availability of sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Previous AfD of December 2005, at Articles for deletion/List of political epithets


 * Strong keep and improve The article is awfully useful.  I found just what I was looking for, contrary to expectations, along with plausible derivation information.  Maybe an article like this really belongs in Wiktionary, but this seems like a reasonable place for it.   —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Harry Feldman (talk • contribs) 08:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Delete as nom. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt the earth. The article is abused in the worst kind of way with some terms included and some denied based on some editors political views rather than Wikipedia policy. // Liftarn
 * Comment - this article has survived a previous AFD. THE KING 16:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That is already explained in the nomination ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve. The article and its discussion page are indeed rife with special pleading, but it isn't intrinsically worthless.  Controversial additions such as "Islamophobia," "India Basher," and "Anti-Semite" need to be well-sourced, of course, and at least one of the three now is.  Consensus should be possible with good-faith editing and – if need be – mediation.  For the rest, the main problem isn't POV-pushing but non-notable trivia and pop curiosities.  With attentive, good-faith editing, this could be a decent page.--G-Dett 16:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: 180 degrees opposite to Jossi, I feel that by calling it an epithet we are denying that it is a fact but rather asserting the necessity of competing viewpoints. It serves as a live index into List of controversial issues. --Uncle Ed 21:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article has proved to be almost solely a place where POV-pushers attempt to insert unsourced nonsense. This is inevitable, given its nature. Jayjg (talk) 21:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete There is no limit to such a list. "Liar" or "thief" also rightfully belong here. Beit Or 21:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article has a long and troubled history as a magnet for POV pushers, and its contents necessarily require a degree of OR and the use of poor sources, given that the New York Times and the Encyclopaedia Britannica have been strangely silent on the issue. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. POV showcase for the latest and greatest OR. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 21:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and reference. I like that it doesn't name names in the article, but it needs to have references. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I've been watching the recent controversy over including "anti-semite" as a political epithet from a distance and I kept thinking that this is really listcruft. There's no notability criteria, so this could, and in some ways already has, devolve into a list of all the mean things people have said about other people's politics. This is unmaintainable and, as the article itself says, never going to be comprehensive. People have been both extraordinarily clever and mindbogglingly obnoxious in inventing terms for their political enemies over the millenia, but there is no question that the human race has been exuberant in this area. To demonstrate, before reading the next sentence, stop to see how many different ways you can call someone a Nazi in 60 seconds. Here's what I came up with: Nazi, facist, gestapo tactics, stormtrooper, hitlerian, hitlerist, hitlerism, national socialist, brown shirt. Ten epithets on one topic in 60 seconds, I timed myself. I'm sure wikipedians could come up with 50 more, just in English. And none of those 50 will be any less notable than some of the gems. The whole list is useless because you have to wade through a zillion insignificant neologisms ("Bushit, DUmmy,etc.) to find something thats of any encyclopedic value. Not to mention that some of these are really not political at all. "Newsbabe". If someone wants to do a list of historically significant political epithets (say, political epithets that have entered the general lexicon, "carpetbagger" or "quisling" for example) that's encyclopedic, but the current list is just drek.GabrielF 22:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Every single entry would surely be fought over endlessly, and without any satisfactory resolution. It is completely impractical to have articles that will always be battlegrounds. --65.192.167.194 22:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, the list has become a free-for-all opportunity for spewing epithets, rather than providing encyclopedic information. -- M P er el ( talk 22:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Elizmr 23:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The Prince 23:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete a constant battleground with no encyclopedic value. Noon 00:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - well said, Noon. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - most of the terms in the article are well-sourced. Just because there is continuing controversy about some is no reason to get rid of the whole thing.  The principle of the nomination is based on a misunderstanding.  Calling something an epithet is not the same as calling it a fact: an epithet is, among other things, "A term used to characterize a person or thing" and "An abusive or contemptuous word or phrase." (from Wiktionary).  Moreover, just because something is a target for POV-pushers and vandalism is no reason to delete it.  Otherwise we'd have to delete every FA that was put on the main page.  -- Black Falcon 01:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think your second point is flawed. Yes, highly visible featured articles are also vandalism magnets. However, those articles are really good and they have lots of committed editors who have already demonstrated that they can keep the garbage out. This is a completely different situation. GabrielF 02:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Make it go away. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 05:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Will be a poisoned POV-pit-extraordinaire. --tickle me 05:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a niche article bordering on OR and a big POV fork. I almost don't want to delete it because then the people who diligently prune this article will spread their interesting viewpoints to other places. Guy Montag 07:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article hasn't been worth the trouble. While the terms may be sourceable, the explanations/definitions are mostly unsourced OR. Important terms already have articles of their own. -Will Beback · † · 07:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, GabrielF, Will B. and others. Article unnecessarily multiplies the opportunities for POV/edit-warring, of which we are already blessed with a surplus.  6SJ7 10:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. As others have noted, the article is a POV battlefield that is prone to OR. But suppose it were renamed 'list of terms that have been described at least once (in reliable sources) as a political epithet,' and suppose the content were edited to match. Would it solve the problems? It might solve some problems - OR, perhaps - but there would still be a fundamental NPOV problem in that the emphasis is on one particular view of one issue. This is not unlike a POV fork of an article. I think it is better to discuss issues at length in their own articles, without emphasis on any particular viewpoint. Jakew 10:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete almost by definition, categorization as a "political epithet" is a matter of POV. Gzuckier 14:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete A platform for POV and little used neologisms. It hasn't improved and very much doubt it will. Marskell 18:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom,  Tewfik Talk 18:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. -- Vision Thing -- 19:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It needs improvement, but keep it. There's loads of really interesting information in the list. With significant referencing i think it would be fine. Ian F. 09:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:OR, WP:WING, and unencyclopædic to boot. Avi 17:43, 15 February 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.