Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 February 16

February 16
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion on February 16, 2008

User:Grounded into a double play → Double play
The result of the debate was Converted to soft-redirect. Redirecting user pages to articles is disruptive. Usernames are linked to the user page in article history, watch lists, etc. Clicking on a username and resulting at a article page is confusing. People sometime do not notice and leave comments meant for the user at the article's talk page. In addition, many new users find navigating back to the source of a redirect confusing. A soft-redirect is the best solution. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC) Cross-namespace redirect. User had previously copy-pasted all of Double play into user page, and has since gone with a redirect instead. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep. While the copy of the page might was too long, redirects are one liners. So what gives?  Grounded into a double play (talk) 21:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - cross space redirect. Also, currently at MfD.--Addhoc (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Addhoc and per its sheer uselessness. JuJube (talk) 03:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Addhoc, WP:R only refers to cross-namespace redirect out of the mainspace, not into it, so I don't think I can agree. This user may be trying to reform after having had a copy of the article speedied under G-12 and then MFDd (when it could've just been speedied as G-12/G-4).  Based on the user's talk page I'm not at all confident that is the case - he or she is cruising for a block - but on the assumption that this is good faith change I think we should let it stand unless we have a good reason not to allow cross-namespace redirects into the mainspace.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 05:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Designer Headbands → Headband
The result of the debate was Speedy delete G3 by User:Pegasus, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC) Redirect is a product of the deletion of an article created by spammer. Speedy was denied by which does make some sense. Still, this is an extremely unlikely search term. Even the use of "designer headband" is at best marginal (about 600 Ghits). Pichpich (talk) 01:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

Government Art Schools → Royal College of Art
The result of the debate was Delete. Redirects for discussion - generic term being used erroneously as a specific term. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC) Unlikely search term and may cause confusion--there are plenty of other government art schools; see page 72 of Art and Nationalism in Colonial India, 1850-1922: Occidental Orientations, for example (found via Google). Besides, the capITalization is wrong. Matchups (talk) 03:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

delete per nom.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

Israeli Occupation Forces → Israel Defense Forces


The result of the debate was keep and redirect to Israel Defense Forces. For background, please note that I've had extensive experience of article naming; I authored WP:NCON, which sets out detailed guidelines for resolving naming disputes, and WP:MOSMAC, which applies those guidelines to a particular Balkan dispute. (I'm currently writing similar guidelines for Kosovo-related articles.) I also wrote the article naming section of WP:NPOV and have provided advice on many naming disputes. So I hope I'm not being immodest when I claim to have some expertise in this area. I apologise in advance for the length of the comments below, but due to the complexity of the issues involved, I feel that it's best to explain them as clearly as possible and provide pointers to the relevant policies and guidelines.

The basic principles are as follows:


 * 1) Redirects exist in the article namespace, but they are not articles (cf. WP:WIAA).
 * 2) The neutral point of view policy requires article names to be neutral. It does not address redirect names (cf. WP:NPOV).
 * 3) Multiple names and phrases, some of which have POV implications, may be associated with article subjects (cf. WP:NCON).
 * 4) The sole function of a redirect is to forward a user from a particular term to an article which relates to the subject of that term. A redirect contains no content in itself (cf. Help:Redirect).
 * 5) To facilitate searches, it is common practice for POV terms to be forwarded via redirects to neutrally-titled articles (e.g. Attorneygate → Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy, Dalmatian Kristallnacht → Dalmatian anti-Serb riots of May 1991).
 * 6) Redirects must have some non-trivial usage (cf. WP:NPOV), and must not be novel terms, implausible typos or uncommon misnomers (cf. WP:CSD).
 * 7) Articles about self-identifying entities must be titled according to English versions of those self-identifying terms, even if some perceive the self-identifying term as POV (cf. WP:NCON).

In applying these principles to this debate, the following conclusions are reached:


 * 1) Several contributors have rightly stated that the term "Israeli Occupation Forces" is a POV expression. However, as the NPOV policy doesn't address redirect naming, arguments based solely on appeals to this policy aren't applicable. POV terminology is also not endorsed as a reason for deleting redirects.
 * 2)  The term has a non-trivial record of usage (cf. Relata refero's comments). It is clearly not novel, implausible or uncommon. It is therefore a term that is likely to be of use to some searchers.
 * 3) The redirect forwards to Israel Defense Forces, a self-identifying term. Some people may regard the IDF's chosen name as POV, but that consideration can't be taken into account (per WP:NCON, "Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive" - we cannot take a stance on whether a self-identifying name is legitimate).
 * 4) The redirect is consistent with our common practice of redirecting commonly-used POV terms to neutrally-titled articles on the subject of the term. With regard to Radical-Dreamer's comments, it would not be OK to redirect "Terrorist" to "Palestinian" (or for that matter "Oppressor" to "Israeli") because those terms are not synonymous.

The redirect meets none of the criteria set out in Redirects for discussion, so the debate must therefore be closed as a keep.

I strongly recommend that the redirect should not be expanded into an article on the term "Israeli Occupation Forces". The inherently POV title would be an unambiguous violation of WP:NPOV. While we do have a few cases where the POV term itself is the subject of the article (e.g. Republican In Name Only, Zionist Occupation Government), this isn't comparable. I don't see how an article on "Israeli Occupation Forces" could be anything other than a clear POV fork of Israel Defense Forces. VegaDark has pointed out that Palestinian use of the term "Israeli Occupation Forces" is already discussed at Israel Defense Forces. I recommend that this section should be expanded and reliably sourced, and the redirect "Israeli Occupation Forces" should be pointed at this section. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Point of view based redirection. The author is a Palestinian who inserts his own P.O.V. into articles and creates these kind of redirections. He was recently blocked for 48 hours for his actions (see user's discussion page), but sadly, this redirection was never deleted. Radical-Dreamer (talk) 15:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Radical-Dreamer (talk) 16:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete POV, non-neutral term. Andranikpasha (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep See new !vote at end. I don't see how the term "occupation forces" is any more POV than "defense forces." One side sees them as defending Israel, the other side sees them as occupying Palestinian/Arab territory.  There is no absolute truth. Matchups (talk) 04:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * IDF stands for 'Israel Defence Forces'. That is the official name for the Israeli army. We are not debating here whether you're pro-Arab or pro-Israel (although, IMO, it is quite obvious that you're pro-Arab). According to you, it's ok if I'll create a redirection called "Terrorists" and redirect it to "Palestinians" or create a redirection called "Egypt/Syria/Lebannon/Jorden Occupation Forces". This redirection should be deleted. Period. Radical-Dreamer (talk) 12:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete It's not about whether you think the IDF "occupies" the Palestinian territories. It's about the actual name of the IDF. The official English name is the Israel Defense Forces. There is no such thing as the "Israel Occupation Forces.  If the admin closes this as a keep, I will be tempted to create redirects for Syrian Occupation Forces to Syrian army and so forth. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 06:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If the term Syrian Occupation Forces has been used by numerous Lebanese sources, discussed among Syrian academics, and debated among anti-Syrian activists, don't wait for the close - create the redirect now. If it's a nonce word, spare us the WP:POINT making. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 18:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Update: Keep content, preferably as an independent article on the neologism. It is, of course, not about whether I think the IDF occupies the Palestinian territories. (It isn't, either, about whether I am a Palestinian - I'm not - about whether I'm a POV pusher - I'm not - or whether I was recently blocked - I was unblocked a few hours later.) It is about whether the term "Israeli Occupation Forces" is a notable name for the IDF, regardless of its correctness, POV-ness, or officiality. As the redirect's history shows, it is not a made-up term, but standard terminology for Palestinian media and NGO's. The term has been specifically cited by Israeli academics as an example of "reframing" discourse, and its appropriateness has been discussed internally among pro-Palestinian activists. It is, in short, a notable alternative name for the IDF. Of course it's a POV term. So is "Defense Forces," or for that matter Palestinian terror, Homicide bombing, etc. Wikipedia documents POVs on a subject, without endorsing them. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 18:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * For the record, "Eleland" is the creator of the debated redirection. He is a POV pusher and a stalker. Eleland - your stalking has been reported. Stop bothering me. Radical-Dreamer (talk) 22:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Question: If kept, is this being treated as a neologism? Relata refero (talk) 18:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Shalom et al. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 05:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Shalom. 6SJ7 (talk) 14:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete And shame on the people who are saying "Well IDF is POV". IDF is the official name. Israeli Occupation Forces is simply a POV title, and should be deleted. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  18:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment to multiple editors. Yes, it's the official name, we all know this, you can stop saying it now. Official names are often POV; Ministry of Truth anyone? There is absolutely no requirement on Wikipedia that official names be the only names used. There are about a million legitimate POV-titled redirects. It's been determined that Palestinian terrorism is too POV to title the article Palestinian political violence, but the redirect is totally appropriate. Ditto for Zionist terrorism. Some blatantly POV terms, far more offensive than "Occupation forces," have entire articles on WP - viz. Zionist Occupation Government, Zionist entity, Pallywood, Nigger, etc. The bare fact, which nobody has addressed, is that several sources habitually use "IOF" or "Israeli Occupation Forces" to refer to the IDF. The term has specifically been discussed in reliable sources from multiple POVs. Wikipedia policy would justify an entire article about the term, let alone a mere redirect as an alternative name. The appropriateness, correctness, or offensiveness of the term "Israeli Occupation Forces" is entirely irrelevant to the deletion discussion. The !votes by Shalom and those "per Shalom" should thus be discounted. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 19:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete I am considering whether or not this qualifies as a WP:CSD, and just outright deleting it myself. Regardless, it is neologistic, unencyclopedic, nonstandard, an egregious violation of WP:NPOV, and all but sounds a clarion as a WP:POINT edit. Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox; please take political neologisms and other such discussions elsewhere. -- Avi (talk) 22:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Article I have been convinced that the redirect is POV, as many readers assume that redirection is equivalent to synonymy, so this implies that the IDF is an occupation force. It would, however, be quite appropriate to have an article with this name, which explains that Palestinian media use this name, why they do, and provides appropriate references.This is not G10-speediable--it is not created for the purpose of disparaging its subject, but to report on others' disparagement.  (For living persons, that's not an adequate excuse, but for an organization I believe it is.) Matchups (talk) 03:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Such an article existed; I wrote it. User:Number 57 decided to merge and redirect it to a "criticisms" section of the IDF article; User:Radical-Dreamer then deleted the "criticisms" section and took to blanking the redirect before i directed him to RfD. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 03:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly what I was asking above. An article treating the use of the term and the debate surrounding it is not non-notable. I don't know what everyone else is complaining about in any case: I get a 100,000 ghits for "Israeli occupation forces". How the hell can a redirect that takes that into account be a G10? Ridiculous. Relata refero (talk) 10:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that makes it two admins who've suggested dubious use of tools in this content dispute; after he merged & redirected the article without discussion, User:Number 57 mooted the idea of "protecting the redirect before it's too late." &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 20:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Article It is a propaganda term used in the war of ideas associated with the Israel-Palestine dispute and should be explained in that context in the same manner that other propaganda terms used by each side such as Zionist entity and Right to exist are. Reliable sources which discuss the use of the term should be identifiable. The current redirect to a section that does not even exist is inappropriate.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Article But it must be extremelly clear this is a propaganda term used in the war of ideas and it should be used to describe the IDF. Zionist entity should not be a redirect to Israel for the same reasons that this should not be a redirect to IDF. There are numerous terms used by all parties to describe the events. This is part of the war of words between both sides. This is notorious and can be sourced quite easily. Ceedjee (talk) 20:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Article This term is valid for an article. That it is highly POV, very emotive and disputed is not in question.  This being the case, NPOV requires the article.  CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 02:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Israel Defense Forces. A redirect to the page in general would make it seem like Wikipedia endorses this nickname, but redirecting it to this specific section makes sense, as this nickname is mentioned in the section.  I think this would be a good compromise for each side. VegaDark (talk) 00:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi VegaDark and thank you for your comment.
 * I understand your point but to which wp:principle do you refer when you talk about compromise ??? and what would be the sides you are talking about in a wikipedian contexts. If there are sides, there are pov-pushers. And if there are pov-pushers, they should be banned.
 * We are writing an encyclopaedia, not dealing the humors of people who would come here to defend some pov or the other or take care about one or the other sensitivity... :-)
 * Ceedjee (talk) 12:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep in some regard. Strong leaning towards redirect. The term itself is clearly notable and used. If the term is POV, that is a good excuse not to use it for the article title, but redirects are there to help our readers locate the article they are trying to find. If a reader is familiar with the term, what article would you like them to be directed to? It almost seems backwards to deleting a valid redirect because some people don't like the term. It's like tramp stamp redirecting to lower back tattoo. I think it is a terrible practice to call women "tramps", especially because of the location of a tattoo. However, the term gets a lot of google hits, and I'd much rather have the reader directed to a generalized article on the topic of lower back tattoos (in lieu of creating an article about the neologism/slang term.) Similarly, I don't think having an article about how opponents characterize this Israeli force is a good idea. However, because the term exists, I think it would be a disservice to our reader not to direct them to the main article on the this topic. I mean really, this seems almost Orwellian or overly politically correct. People don't like a term so they want it completely purged from wikipedia? I think the best answer to this POV is to have the article redirect to the "proper" "official" name. The point of redirects is for people searching for alternative names (perhaps even names that would never work for article titles, but are still notably used) to find an article on the topic. Those searching for "Israeli Occupation Forces", a notably used term are looking for the topic found at "Israel Defense Forces", right? So how is having this redirect not helpful?-Andrew c [talk] 01:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do you think that "if [a] term is POV, that is a good excuse not to use it for [an] article title" ? Could ou develop because the purpose is not to talk about the IDF but about the term used by some to name them. Term which is notorious, poved and on which there is much to say.
 * Why are the IDF name Defense by some and Occupation by others. What are their arguments. Why is this term pejorative, why is it not, what are all the point of view on the issue ? Ceedjee (talk) 12:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE RE-READ: Strong delete It's not about whether you think the IDF "occupies" the Palestinian territories. It's about the actual name of the IDF. The official English name is the Israel Defense Forces. There is no such thing as the "Israel Occupation Forces. If the admin closes this as a keep, I will be tempted to create redirects for Syrian Occupation Forces to Syrian army and so forth. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 06:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.134.133 (talk)